Obama’s New Tax Increase

Obama has tried numerous strategies to try to gain favor and/or bad mouth Mitt Romney in the past months.  It is has been mildly impressive that they have a new attack every week that is completely random, usually not true, but very distracting.  However, last week President Obama got back on what appears to be one of his key messages, that the rich people need to pay their “fair share” and actually presented a policy stance: raising taxes on the “wealthy.”

President Obama said that the Bush tax cuts need to expire for those making more than $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals.  His proposal is a one year extension, just enough to get him through the election.  One of his main arguments was that he wants to return to the same tax rates as the Clinton era.

However, in 2001 (Clinton’s last year as President), the federal budget was $1.9 trillion.  In 2011, President Obama’s federal spending was $3.6 trillion.  In ten years, our government has nearly doubled in size and the President’s tax plan does not get us close to a balanced budget.  Further, I feel his tax plan of increasing taxes on small businesses will be a job killer.  A small tax increase can take away the revenue needed to pay someone’s salary.

The Republicans and Mitt Romney argue that tax cuts are the key to recovery, based on what Reagan did.  The reason it worked for Reagan is that he brought tax rates down by over 40 percentage points, which is a big change that did spur economic growth.  However, all of the Republican proposals I have seen have been less than 5% points, which will not be significant enough to catapult our economy.  As much as I believe in tax cuts, we need to get our spending house in order before we get too aggressive with cuts.  If we cut taxes too much before reducing spending, it could hurt our deficit so much, that it will slow economic growth instead of spur it.

As I have always said, this blog is about solutions.  There are a lot of things I would do such as repeal Obamacare and cut spending drastically.  However, I would go after two things first that are a little less political and could have the biggest initial impact for our economy.  The first thing we need to do is gain some stability, so I would try to get permanent income tax rates versus continually extending Bush tax cuts one year at a time.  Permanency gives stability to small businesses, thus allowing them to plan and hire.  Because this would not be easy, here’s my compromise: make the Bush tax rates permanent, but close loop holes.  The rates keep taxes low, but closing loop holes increases revenues, making both parties happy.  While Republicans may argue that closing loop holes are a net tax increase, I have a different opinion altogether.  Loop holes are, in my mind, unintended tax breaks that lawyers took advantage of, which is not congruent with the original intent of Congress when the code was created.

The second thing I would do is permanently cut the corporate tax rate in half.  Right now, the United States has the highest corporate tax in the world.  Our corporate tax revenue is only 8% of the U.S. total revenues (approx. $180 billion), so it’s impact financially for the government would be small, but the impact for the businesses would be large.  Cutting the rate in half does three key things:

• It reduces the cost of doing business in the United States, helping jobs come back home from overseas.
• It increases the ability to hire people and reduce unemployment.  Further, when the money goes to individuals’ income vs. corporate income, it will still be taxed, thus roughly breaking even on net revenue.
• Last, this concentrated radical change would be just big enough to spur change in our economy.  The tax cut would essentially increase the profitability of every corporation in the United States and help the stock market as well.

The key to problem solving is to start with high impact, low effort solutions (i.e. my two ideas).  Afterwards, you look for high impact, high effort solutions (i.e. solving social security and healthcare).  The two simple ideas I proposed would be easy to understand, quickly implemented, and highly effective in spurring economic growth.

How Republicans Win 2012 – Options

For my 100th blog post,  I decided to let you in on how the Republicans can create a strategy that will improve our system and economy, resonate with voters, and defend against Democrats.  It all comes down to one thing, giving citizens options.

I love having options, it is essentially a form of freedom.  I believe Republicans need to develop programs where people can choose between the current system and a new system.  Giving citizens the option between old and new eliminates the fear of the new.  Further, Democrat’s entire election campaign is around generating a fear of the Republicans.  For example, they have commercials of a Paul Ryan looking figure pushing granny off the cliff.  Just this past weekend, David Axelrod labeled Republicans a “reign of terror.”

I want to give a you few examples of options:

• Social Security –> the Chilean model essentially privatizes gains and socializes loses.  Basically, people would be given the option to stay with the current system or invest a portion of their social security dollars (instead of paying the full tax) to a private investment.  If the private investment does not meet the payout they would have received with the government social security check, they are paid the difference by the government.  It benefits the citizen because people typically get paid more privately than with social security, less money is paid out to citizens because their investments worked, preventing the system from going bankrupt, and there are still people paying in for those who want to stay on today’s version of social security.
• Medicare –> Did you know it is cheaper for us to pay citizens about $15,000/yr. for them to get their own private insurance than it is for them to be on medicare?  If we give people the option to do the private version, we would save money, even if only 10% did it.  Further, insurance is all about risk for the insurance companies.  If they have a larger pool of people paying in, it reduces the risk for them, increasing their ability to make insurance more affordable..
• Tax Code –> What if we had the ability to choose between the current tax code and paying a straight 20% of earned income without any deductions? If I had the option of paying a straight 20% instead of going through the confusion of our current model, I’d probably choose the easy path.

Obviously, the examples I gave are extremely complicated.  However, I wanted to illustrate some ways that we could create platforms that provide options.

I believe Republicans are trying to convince the American people that we need massive changes.  However, people do not like change, especially big change.  The public opinion of an entire nation cannot turn like a speed boat, it is more like a massive air craft carrier that takes miles to slowly turn around.  By offering options, it allows people time to get comfortable with big ideas.  The great thing about the private options presented is they will naturally become popular because they will typically put more money in people’s pockets.

Romney and Republicans need to market options more than the big ideas.  They need to tell Democrats, “If you like the current system, keep it.  Meanwhile, us 50% of Americans (the Republicans) will take the private options, make more money, and help cut the national budget.  You’re welcome Democrats…you’re welcome!”

Capital Gains Tax Rate – Just Leave It Alone

There has been a lot of talk about the tax rates of Warren Buffet, Mitt Romney, and President Obama.  Most people don’t remember this, but when then Senator Obama ran for office, he said was going to pay for all his campaign promises by ending both wars (Iraq & Afghanistan), increasing taxes on the rich (by letting the Bush tax cuts expire), and increasing the capital gains tax rate.

Income made on investments get taxed at a 15% rate vs. income from a job, which reach as high as 35%.  However, when Obama got into office, there was a recession going on, which crushed our stock market.  Essentially, there were little capital gains to tax, they wanted to encourage people to invest in companies, and a tax hike on capital gains in his first year during a recession would have been toxic politically.

Now that the dust has settled and we are seeing a small recovery, President Obama wants to increase taxes on capital gains and on the rich as he goes back into campaign mode.  Adversely, some Republicans and conservative blogs say that we should get rid of capital gains to increase the incentive to invest in the marketplace.  I believe the government does play a role in producing an environment that promotes economic growth, but they also need to be careful about putting too big of incentives on either side so as not to disrupt the balance of reasonableness and the power of the free market.

I do not believe we should increase the capital gains tax rate because for the majority of Americans, it is double taxation.  We get taxed when we earn income from our jobs, and then that money gets taxed again if we make any money with it on an investment (note: that same money gets taxed a third time when you die).  Further,  I think it is good to have an incentive (lower taxes) for people to invest in companies.  Financial investments in corporations lead to hiring, innovation, and profits.

It is not good policy in my mind, to promote too much risk by having a 0% tax rate on capital gains.  Too many people would try to make all of their money on investments so they do not have to pay taxes, which could be dangerous at the macro level.  Investing in the stock market is no guarantee and can be extremely risky.  If you don’t believe me, ask the thousands that had to come out of retirement because their portfolio shrunk to nearly nothing when the recession hit.

The current 15% capital gains tax is fine in my mind — not too high, not too low.  I definitely think we can talk about capital gains tax rates if we are talking about restructuring the entire tax code, but it is a low priority topic right now in my mind.

The Election Begins: Obama vs. Romney

After months of being dormant on the blogosphere, I am back.  Bored and confused by the primaries, the Republicans finally have a candidate to go against President Obama.  Although there are a plethora of topics I’d love to dive into, I thought I’d start with framing up the 2012 Presidential Election.  So far, I’ve heard this election is about the women vote, the independent vote, the hispanic vote, the swing states vote, the religious conservative vote, and just about every other option.  So which group is it?  The truth is that it cannot be about one group of people, it is about what candidate do you trust to improve our country.

A few comments on the aforementioned groups:

• Women vote – I believe both candidates underestimate the diversity of thought among women.  To put all women in a group and say they have a collective set of key issues is vastly misplaced and demeaning in my view.  Like men, women have a variety of views and issues.
• Independent vote – most believe independents are people right in the middle.  The truth is, most have strong views on the left and strong views on the right that leave them conflicted – for example, they may be socially liberal but pro-life.  The candidates who spend time arguing their points versus bad mouthing their opponent will convince independents to vote for the strong view on that candidate’s side.
• Hispanic vote – a large majority of Hispanics are Catholic and have a lot of conservative principles.  However, Republican have not typically come alongside Hispanic voters.  Bush carried 45% of Hispanic votes vs. McCain only getting 31%.  Romney is in the drivers seat on this one.
• Swing State votes – these 12 states will ultimately decide the election, but their key issues are quite diverse.  Because of their diversity, there ends up being little difference between a general election campaign and a 12 state campaign.  The only real difference is that they will have more visits in these states.  With today’s 24-7 media coverage, it doesn’t really matter where presidential candidates stop because even if they were in your home town, you probably wouldn’t see the events live anyway.  The only interaction you’d have is waiting in traffic longer.  On a side note, I do think this could affect Romney’s VP choice.
• Religious conservative vote – Even though Romney has flip flopped on some religious conservative stances, he has aligned with their views and will still be much closer to their views than President Obama.  Like other sects of the population, although they have viewpoints they are passionate about, they will look to the candidate that they feels gives the United States the best chance at success.

In 2004, Democrats hated Bush with a passion.  I believe Republicans disapprove of Obama’s leadership in a similar fashion in 2012.  Many Republicans are counting on that passion to win the election.  However, like in 2004, you cannot win an election based on hatred of the other candidate.  People do not vote against a candidate in the booth, they vote for a candidate in the booth.  If they are not mildly excited about the direction that candidate is going to attempt to steer the country towards, they will not show up to vote for their candidate–this is especially true with independents.

If you ask people today what John Kerry’s top issues were, they’ll rarely be able to tell you because his campaign focused on Bush bashing rather than casting a vision.  You can see the power of casting a vision by looking at the 2008 Obama campaign, which casted a vision of Republicans and Democrats holding hands, Washington working together to cut deficit spending, and more.

President Obama’s strategy this time around appears to be one of divide and conquer.  He is trying to divide the country and get enough sects of the population to support him in order to get a majority.  He does this by alienating groups and demonizing Romney.  For example, he’s willing to lose the “rich” group if he gets the middle and poor class by calling Romney a rich person not in touch with the American people.

For Romney to win, he needs to focus on casting a clear vision of where he wants to bring America.  It will take a lot of discipline to stay on message and use every opportunity he has to share his vision, especially with the onslaught of distractions and attacks from the Obama campaign.  I personally believe Obama has been worse than Jimmy Carter because Carter’s failures didn’t cost $5 trillion in four years.  Although Ronald Reagan pointed out factual information that showed Carter’s shortcomings, the main reason Reagan beat Carter was because of the positive vision he cast for the United States that rallied people on both sides of the aisle.

It is going to be a very close election…should be fun!

Debt Ceiling Increased – the Wins and Opportunities of the Bill

The House and Senate have voted to increase the debt ceiling.  The bill that passed was definitely a compromise. Before I get into the wins and opportunities of the bill, let me just take a second to clarify what is worst about the outcome of this bill and what the democrats stood for in this debate.

The saddest thing about this deal is that we could have saved trillions of dollars against the baseline by simply freezing our budget. Instead, they assume about a 7.5% annual budget increase and their “cuts” are against the 7.5 increase baseline.  As my father said once, “you can never ‘save’ money when you are spending it.”  If you buy a $100 sweater for $75, you did not save $25, you spent $75.  You may have paid $25 less than the proposed value, but you still spent $75.  The United States may have ‘saved’ a few trillion dollars in this debt deal, but they are still spending many more trillions!

The democrats did not support balancing the budget, they wanted to increase the debt limit with no restrictions. People may think I am mean because I am a republican who wants big budget cuts, but I’d rather be mean than reckless.  Democrats ASSUME that we will always be able to borrow money, but would you borrow to someone that owed over $14 trillion and was borrowing roughly $100 billion more every month?  Do you really feel like someone in that much debt is going to pay off their debt?

The reason our credit rating is potentially going down is because we are not a great investment and it does not appear that we are going to pay our debts back.  Our economy grew 0.4% last quarter.  That is not the kind of return you are looking for as an investor.  Russia’s leader called the United States a parasite on the world economy today.  If countries stop borrowing to us, we’ll either have to stop paying for medicare and social security, because we will not be able to afford it, or we’ll have to print money and have massive inflation.  I feel the RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to make the tough decisions now, to avoid a crisis tomorrow.  Wouldn’t you rather see someone get 90% of medicare for the rest of their life than 100% for two years and then 0% afterwards?  I am not mean, I care about those people that are relying on a promise that may not be kept.

Hopefully this debt deal is a really small step in the right direction.  Below are some of the wins and opportunities of the bill.

Major Wins:

• America did not default on paying the bills.
• There were no tax increases.
• President Obama did not get a blank check.
• There are some measures in place to look for more cuts.
• There will be a vote for a balanced budget amendment (which was previously tabled by Senate democrats).

Major Opportunities:

• The cuts weren’t large enough – from what I read, there will only be $7 billion in cuts in 2012 and $3 billion in cuts in 2013 (less than 0.1% of the budget).  I could cut that in the blink of an eye and no one would even notice!
• The debt ceiling increase was one of the largest, if not, the largest in United States history.
• President Obama will not have to talk about it again before the next election because of the large increase to the ceiling.
• Spending is still increasing, as was explained earlier.
• There was no transformation on the way Washington works or views taxation and spending.
• We are still the laughing stock of the world (seriously think about watching this from the outside – we are a smart nation who has elected leaders that do not believe in having a balanced budget, despite massive debt!).  They are looking at us like I look at Greece!

The Tea Party did some great things to make this an issue.  The Republicans were in a tough spot and because of their commitment to their beliefs, the democrats knew they had to give in if they were ever going to pass a bill.  So, it was the convictions and principals of  the tea party candidates that made this a better deal, not their politics.  The deal is not even close to perfect, but I hope all of the attention on the debt ceiling puts pressure on candidates in the fall of 2012 to pledge that they will balance the budget.

Oil Prices…Ugh!

About a week ago, I discussed how Obama’s release of our strategic petroleum reserves was idiotic and would have no long term benefit.  Well, in just a week, the price of oil is already going up again (is now a good time to say, “I told you so?”).  Consider this another Obama “stimulus” that did not stimulate anything but more debt.

The price of gas is up $0.80 per gallon from the same week last year.  When Obama took office in 2009, the price per gallon was at $1.84.  The average price per gallon is now at $3.55, a 92.9% increase in gas prices.

The White House has given two responses to the high gas prices:

1. Excuses – President Obama blamed the wars in the Middle East and Japan earthquake.
2. Aspirations – President Obama said green energy is the solution, but that infrastructure will not be set up in a long time.

The only thing the White House has not offered…a solution.

The Nanny State is Hurting America

I am opposed to Nanny State policies (policies that are uninvited state intervention) it for three main reasons: it takes away personal freedoms by getting involved in areas unnecessarily, because arrogant politicians think that they can run my life better than I can and mainly, it produces no consequences.

Government Gets Involved in Areas it Does NOT Need to be:

This past week, it was announced that cigarette packs are going to have graphic pictures to deter people from smoking. Do people not know that smoking is bad for you?  What percent of smokers are going to see the picture and be shocked by the possibility of poor health caused by cigarettes?  This example shows that the government assumes that we are all 10 year olds that could be influenced by a picture.  Here are more examples of the government intervening on daily decisions:

In New York, they have talked about removing trans fats and/or salt at restaurants.  There has been talk of a “fat tax” in some places around the country, which would be a higher sales tax rate on foods that are high in fat.  Medicare recently decided to cover obesity, which mean American tax payers could be paying for obese people’s stomach stapling surgeries, diet plans, and nutritional counseling.

In San Francisco, they are looking to ban people from getting circumcised and ban gold fish ownership within city boundaries, being that it is mean to put gold fish in a bowl.

Every state but one requires you to wear a seat belt.  Every state but three requires a helmet for some or all people on a motorcycle.  In 2000, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned a certain car seat not because it wasn’t safe, but because it was too safe and they argued it could lull parents into a false sense of security.

Many cities around the country have banned smoking in restaurants.

We have federalized airport security with TSA agents (who will be voting to unionize soon, so don’t expect that line to be moving any faster anytime soon).

We are forced to pay social security taxes, but have no say on how the money is invested (mainly because it is not invested).

Arrogant Politicians:

Why do our politicians think they know how to live our lives better than we do? Why do they think their job is to tell us what to eat or what kind of car to drive?  When I see politicians like Anthony Wiener, I wonder what makes him think he can run my life if he cannot run his own!

No Consequences:

In short, people should have the right to be stupid and the right to fail, so long as they have to face the consequences of their actions.  Right now, 49% of Americans do not pay federal income tax, many because they are “poor.” So what are the consequences of being poor right now in America, according to government reports on people classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau:

Looking above, over 50% have two or more tv’s and over 50% have cable!  I am pretty sure having cable television isn’t a right protected in the Constitution.  In a typical poor family, the family works 16 hours per week.  If they were able to move it up to 40 hours a week (or 2 parents at 20 hours each), 75% of poor children would officially move out of poverty.  Nanny State policies, although many well intentioned, have unintended negative consequences.  When an item is free that others have to pay for, more and more people will gravitate towards the free item.  Why work 40 hours when you can work 16 hours and get the rest of the money from the government?

The Real Bad Guys – Colleges & Universities

Whenever things go bad, people start pointing fingers.  You have seen fingers pointed at Wall Street, big oil companies, and Washington.  The truth is that we have all played a small part in this recession.  However, I want to talk about the detriment that our universities are having on our economy and society.

At a macro level, economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.  To have a strong economy, you need people capable of producing and purchasing goods.  Are our universities creating producers and purchasers of goods?

The first item I want to talk about is the increased cost of tuition over time:

College tuition is increasing at an exponential rate.  This is causing an increase in college debt.  The average student debt went from $12,750 in 1996 to $23,200 in 2008, nearly doubling.  In just four years (2004 to 2008), there was a 24% increase in debt.  In 2008, 67% of students graduating from four year colleges and universities had student loans.

It used to be that if you got a college degree, you were guaranteed a job.  The cost was little for school and the benefit great.  The cost is no longer little and the guarantee for a job is gone.  Unemployment is high right now, despite numerous job openings.  The big problem is that we have few people with the skill set needed for the jobs that are available (mainly technical skills).

There is a new lower class and middle class developing.  The new lower class contains people who spent a lot of money on a degree they cannot do anything with or that is for a low paying job.  Many social workers now have masters degrees and while that helps them make a difference, financially, it puts them in a tough spot.  Even if they file for bankruptcy, that does not relieve them of their college debt typically.

The new middle class are being called by some as HENRY’s (High Earning Not Rich Yet).  HENRY’s are people with nice paying jobs, but loads of student debt; student debt has even surpassed credit card debt.  Because they are high earners, they are paying high taxes.  With the combination of high taxes and high school loan payments, the new middle class has decreased purchasing power.  Many can take up to 20 years to pay off all of their school debt.

I do believe there is a need for a great education at a low cost that has to be filled.  Public universities, like the federal government, have a spending problem.  Their simple solution to making their budget is to pass their cost onto their students, who really have no power.  Before, I mentioned that there was a 24% increase in tuition costs in a four year span.  Do you think a freshmen student in 2004 saw a 24% increase in value in his degree by the time he was a senior?  Public universities need to stop spending money on items that do not add value and provide a basic education that prepares students for the real world.

I do not see long-term growth in our country without tackling the costs of universities.  Our young adults are starting life behind financially with degrees that are offering declining value.

How’d We Get into this Budget Mess?

Making a budget is kind of like trying to lose weight.  If you have ever tried to lose weight, you will find there are a million ways to do so.  You can try this work out or that, this diet or that, or this tool (such as a lap band) or that.  Because all these different options make different people money, the options become more complex.  However, the equation is pretty easy: if you burn more calories than you eat, you’ll lose weight.

Just as money confuses losing weight, politics/power ruin efficient and effective government in Washington.  Government budgets are easy – spend less than you receive.  There are a lot of ways to do that, but we’re still not there.  Instead, games have been played by the Democrats to force Republicans to make the cuts so the Democrats can brand them as the bad guys and try to keep the power through irresponsible governing, inaction, and deceit.

Luckily, there are conservative blogs like this one that tell you the real story about the budget!

Let me walk you through how we got into this budget mess:

• Federal Gov’t’s fiscal year is October-September.  Last year, the Democrats (who owned the House, Senate, and Presidency) did not pass a budget before the year started.
• After Democrats lost the election, they passed a budget during the lame duck session (time between election and when election winners take office in January), but the budget was only to last until March 8.
• When Republicans took over the House, they passed their own budget for the rest of the year that had $61 billion in cuts to discretionary spending (which had seen an 83% increase under Obama).
• The Senate is supposed to either pass it or pass their version of it and send it back to the House (to begin the negotiating process).  After about 1.5 months, the Senate didn’t pass anything.
• Approaching a deadline, Republicans in the House extended the budget for another two weeks to give Democrats time to either pass their budget or create their own budget.
• The Republicans made an offer, but Democrats didn’t like it.
• President Obama sends VP Biden to met with the House leadership – Biden has one meeting and then leaves the country for two weeks.
• Approaching another deadline, the Republicans extend the budget another 3 weeks.
• This Friday, we are now facing yet another deadline and the Democrats still haven’t proposed anything.  There is even Democrat leaders on record saying they are hoping for a shut down to make Republicans look bad.
• On Tuesday, President Obama had one meeting to discuss the budget and then he left town.
• Today (Wednesday), most likely bothered by the bad press, President Obama decided to come back and now had another meeting tonight.  Earliest reports indicate they didn’t reach a decision and are talking about another extension to give them more time to figure out the budget.

A few facts to think about:

• Republicans’ $61 billion in cuts proposal in a $3.5 trillion budget is about 1.7% of the budget.
• The $3.5 trillion budget has a $1.65 trillion deficit – $61 billion is about 3.7% of just the annual deficit.
• It took 3 deadlines before President Obama decided to step in.

Democrats have had every opportunity to make a budget and they have not.  If there is a shut down, it is the Democrats fault.  It is amazing that the Democrats still own the Senate and the White House and we don’t know their plan.  Even more amazing is that instead of the Senate passing their own version and starting the debate publicly, 3 people (Obama, Boehner, and Reid) have to sit in private to negotiate a $3.5 trillion budget.  Where are the elected officials from other states?

On the bright side, although the Democrats did not pass a budget on time last year, Republican Paul Ryan has already proposed a budget for next year that actually tries to curb spending.  I am still waiting to hear a real Democrat plan…if they have one.

Revolutions Around the World

There are some amazing things going on right now around the world.  Young people everywhere are standing up for their rights.  President Bush once said, “I believe all these things because freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is the Almighty God’s gift to every man and woman in this world.”  I believe people around the world have an innate longing for freedom.  They are sick of being told what to do, sick of being oppressed, and sick of not having a voice.  The big question for us is, “What is America’s role in this?”

It is very difficult to understand what we should do because truthfully we don’t know a lot about the groups that are revolting and what they stand for.  You can listen to the media, but a lot of their information has been formulated in the last few weeks as they try to figure out what’s going on over there.  From everything I have read, the only common denominator is that people in these countries were miserable and decided to demand change.

Some conservative blogs say we need to get in there and make sure we get the “right” leader.  The United States is already gearing up militarily to enforce a no fly zone in Libya.  However, no revolution will be as genuine and hold as much historical value if the revolution has a “Made in the USA” stamp on it.  Like capitalism, sometimes you have to go through some bad times to get to the good times.

So what should we do?  I think we need to be prepared to partner with any leaders that can overhaul a government and be ready to talk about democracy.  Too many times we’ve been too involved in trying to prop up the “right” leader who will work with us.  The problem is that power corrupts, so even if they are working with us, it doesn’t necessarily make them the best leader for their country (take Egypt for example).  The only thing that we can do is hope for, push for, and help promote democracies.

Imagine a radical Islamic group is part of democratic process.  As radical as they may be, as soon as they have to start negotiating with those people they disagree with, certain successions begin to happen.  People complain about our democratic system as being slow at times, but all the checks and balances prevent radicalism and promote conversation and the open discussion of ideas.

Our goal should not be to prop up the “right” leader but to promote democracy and shake the hands of those brave enough to stand up for what they believe in.  Obviously, this subject is much more confusing than this small article gives it credit, but history has taught us that we haven’t been successful when we try to prop up the “right” leader, getting involved militarily costs us a lot of money [that we don’t have], and revolutions have more impact when there is sacrifice.