U.S. Foreign Policy: A Primer

Just a few quick lunchtime thoughts on current American foreign policy, in a nutshell:

Russia invades Ukraine, steals Crimea.
U.S. response: give Ukraine $1 billion, threaten Russia with sanctions, say Russia shouldn't have done that.

Russia hacks into various U.S. government agency databases, including (possibly) the Department of Energy and the White House.
U.S. response: Obama tells Putin, "Cut it out."  (This wasn't effective diplomacy when my brother and I used to fight in the back seat of the car on vacation; I hardly believe it'll be effective when dealing with the likes of Putin.)

Russia allegedly hacks into the Democrat National Committee email servers, exposing the truth about the Clinton campaign, and resulting in the blame for her loss in the Presidential election being pointed at the alleged hack.  (I'll have more to say about the alleged hack and the reasons for the election results in a later post.
U.S. response:  "SANCTIONS!!  BY ALL THAT IS RIGHTEOUS AND HOLY, THERE WILL BE SANCTIONS!!!"

And there you have it, boys and girls.  Invade other countries, annex their lands, and we shake a finger.  Hack into actual government databases, and we say "cut it out."  But hack into our sacred party's cesspool of evidence of back-room plotting and dealing, and you'll get a reaction.

The Golden Globes

First, let me say I didn't watch the Golden Globes.  I never would.  I'm not into star-worship.  I don't care who has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  I don't get all weepy when we lose a Carrie Fisher to cardiac arrest at age 60, or a Debbie Reynolds to intracerebral hemorrhage at age 81.  (I don't mean to sound insensitive; it's just that I'm more affected by losing unnamed children at the hands of a suicide bomber, or innocents waiting for their luggage in an airport baggage claim area, than I am by some celebrity dying of a natural cause at a ripe old age, having enjoyed a full and blessed life.)  I don't scream my angst at 2016 for taking so many stars from us, when so many other lives have been lost.  Think Chicago.

A few days ago, my wife and I watched an excellent film on Netflix, "Spotlight."  I had no idea that it had won Best Picture at the Oscars last year.  I couldn't care less.  Most of the Best Picture winners I've seen have been hot garbage, and I've seen a good many enjoyable films that the Oscars didn't sniff.

It's entertainment, after all, and, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

However, perusing Facebook the morning after the Golden Globes, I did read of much of the hoopla that emanated from it.  So I feel compelled to opine.  First, with a message for Meryl Streep.  Then, with a message for Hollywood in general.  And finally, with a message for Alec Baldwin.

Ms. Streep: let me first say that more people watch football than have seen your films.  I'm sure that sticks in your elitist craw, but it's fact.  (By the way, you were a cheerleader, so at some point, football was important for you, if only in terms of getting you noticed; while the players on the field did the actual work, you got some attention for doing high kicks and shaking your pom-poms on the sideline.)

Second, let me say that what you do is not "art," it's entertainment.  You started your career in theater - that comes closer to art, and I say that as someone who's been involved in theater, and has seen some wonderful (and disappointing) shows on Broadway, the West End in London, and other venues.

However, you detoured into film - presumably for the money.  I don't hold that against you; greed isn't a bad thing, in my view.  However, if you insist on defending movies as "art," how do you justify "Waterworld?"  "Baseketballs?"  The Freddy Krueger movies?  The upcoming "Fist Fight?"

Ah, you say haughtily, but I would never participate in such films.  Okay, how about "The House of the Spirits?"  "Before and After?"  Or "The Bridges of Madison County," that tribute to the romanticism of marital infidelity?

Sorry, Meryl.  You're no artist.  You're a for-profit entertainer.

And on that note, this is how I feel about entertainers.  You make a ton of money pretending to do what the rest of us do, day in and day out, in real life.  Which you apparently don't have the skills or talent or knowledge to do yourselves.  Sure, you can play make believe.  We've all done that, as kids, when we were growing up.  But then we grew up, and made a positive contribution to our society and our economy, while you continued to play-act, to entertain.

That's okay.  That's your job.  It's what I and other hard-working Americans pay you to do.  So do it, already.  Get on that stage or behind that camera and do what I pay you to do: pretend to be something you could never be in real life, but that I and others can be.  Make us laugh.  Make us cry.  Inspire us.  Entertain us.  Give us an escape from the hard work that we do.

Then shut up.  Get back in your box until we're ready to bring you out again, for our pleasure, to entertain us once more.  Because, you see, you don't exist in our consciousness until we invite you to, by going to a theater.  And once the final credits have scrolled, you cease to exist in our consciousness once again.  You are as unimportant as a book that we'll read, enjoy, then sell in a garage sale for a quarter.  (And the book is always better than the movie.)  You are as forgotten as the popcorn we consumed.

If we want your opinion on world events, the political scene, or any other important issue, we'll be the first to let you know.  Until then, do the job we pay you to do, be thankful that we pay you to do it, appreciate that we forgive your occasional bombs as we enjoy your occasional successes, then keep your views to yourself.  We don't care.  You are our entertainers, like so many monkeys as we grind the organ, and you are otherwise inconsequential.

Finally, to Alec Baldwin.  You are unfunny.  You are at your best when you're in a serious role - Ghosts of Mississippi comes to mind - but apparently Hollywood isn't interested in that from you anymore.  Maybe you're washed up in that regard.  Now, you come across as one of those guys desperately trying to be funny, but missing the mark.  You've been relegated to such roles as providing a voice in a Spongebob Squarepants movie.  How proud of your "art" you must be.  You even sucked in those credit card ads, so much so that Jennifer Garner had to come in and replace you.

As you bash Donald Trump (with the worst Trump impersonation ever - Darrell Hammond was far, far better), we're reminded of those sordid recorded voicemails you left threatening your daughter.  At least Trump loves his kids, even if he's divorced from their mother.

Remember, Hollywood, you are my plaything.  I can take you out of your box and play with you - paying to do so, which provides you with a livelihood, for which I'd like some gratitude - or I can ignore you.  Either way, at the end of it, back in the box you go, until I'm ready to be entertained again, at the time of my choosing.  Not yours.  Why?

Because in the grand scheme of things, you are unimportant.

"No Hope"

First Lady Michelle Obama, appearing on Oprah recently, commented that "now we are feeling what not having hope feels like."

Really, Madam First Lady?

Were you not so out of touch with most of America, you might know that the first post-election print of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index posted a 6.6-point jump from the previous reading.  The index reached its sixth-highest level since your husband was elected President in 2008.  Consumers sure look hopeful.

You might also know that the equity markets have been on a tear since the election, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average tickling 20,000 for the first time in history.  The Dow posted 17 record closes in the 32 trading days after the election, and is up nearly 9% since then.  Also, the Wells Fargo/Gallup Investor and Retirement Optimism Index, which polls small investors, reached the highest point a week after the election since before your husband was elected President.  Investors - large and small - sure look hopeful.

I haven't been out Christmas shopping this year; recovering from hernia surgery tends to keep one house-bound.  However, a PwC poll covering the holiday shopping season found that consumers, on average, plan to spend about 10% more this year than last, and consumers with household incomes less than $50,000 plan to increase spending more than consumers overall.  So holiday shoppers sure look hopeful - even those of limited means.

Millions of Americans are hopeful that their health insurance premiums will go down, or at least not continue to increase at an astronomical rate.  Taxpayers are hopeful that they'll get to take home more of their hard-earned pay, and that the legacy of government over-spending may finally end.  Small businesses are hopeful that they won't continue to be strangled by regulatory excess.

If you really want to see what not having hope looks like, Madam First Lady, might I suggest you look at the footage coming out of Aleppo recently.  Tragically, most people there have lost hope, as your husband's "red line" disappeared like the scrawling on one of those Magic Slate things some of us had as kids, where you lift the clear plastic sheet, and voila, the lines you drew are gone.

Or pay a visit to Africa - not for a photo op, as your husband did when he visited his grandmother in Kenya, but to spend time among people living in impoverished conditions.  My own experiences in Africa have taught me that many people there do have hope, because they place their hope in God, not in some politician.

And that brings us to an important point: the sheer arrogance of someone actually suggesting that the people's hope derives from who occupies the White House is pretty amazing.  Just because you bandy the word about as a campaign slogan doesn't mean you've cornered the market on hope.

Especially when, after eight years, you've failed to deliver on the change that was supposed to justify that hope.

Beyond the self-serving silliness of Mrs. Obama's claim looms the question: why is she making the claim, at this moment in time, to begin with?  Her husband has publicly pledged to work to ensure a smooth and orderly transition of power, adding, "We are all rooting for [Trump's] success in uniting and leading the country."

But there's another message being transmitted, by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, who has made numerous public anti-Trump comments since the election, and then this from Mrs. Obama, who apparently isn't among those rooting for Trump's success in uniting the country.  Instead, her statements are working against those efforts.

Mrs. Obama claimed in a campaign speech for Hillary Clinton, "When they go low, we go high."

Indeed.

We've Been Jobbed!

The December 2016 jobs report - the last one that will print during President Obama's time in office - was a mixed bag: non-farm payrolls rose just 156k, less than expected, but there were upward revisions to the October and November gains.  The jobless rate edged up a tick to 4.7%, still very low historically.  The brightest spot was wage growth, which hit 2.9% year-over-year, the first decent number since the recession.

Yahoo Finance placed a different spin on the report.  It printed an article titled, "President Obama's Legacy Has Just Been Cemented."  Hmmm.  Rather than accepting at face value an attempt by a left-leaning internet "news" source to salvage one piece of the outgoing Democrat President's now-threatened legacy, let's look at the numbers and the facts, shall we?  Point by point, we'll debunk the Yahoo Finance (YF) puff piece.

"75 consecutive months of job gains."

Can't argue with that one.  However, read on.

"Wage growth acceleration."

To justify this assertion, YF presents a graph showing average wages since 1980.  They then unabashedly mine the data, showing that wage growth averaged just 0.1% per year from 1980 to 2007, but it's been 1.3% since 2012.  Sounds impressive, right?

Except the period from 1980-2007 included three full recessions and parts of two more, yet YF conveniently starts the recent growth trend well after the most recent recession ended.  Why not compare wage gains from the time President Obama took office?  Or compare the recent growth spurt to other periods of strong growth in wages?  The fact is that wage gains have been an anemic trouble spot for the labor market from the end of the recession until about 2014, and only then have they picked up.  When it comes to data mining, if you torture the data long enough, it'll confess to anything.

"Full-time job boom."

 Attempting to refute the claims that much of the job growth we've seen since the recession ended has been "lower-quality" jobs, YF presents a graph comparing growth in full-time vs. part-time employment.  They note that full-time jobs have grown by 13.7 million since December 2009 (again, conveniently excluding the decline in full-time employment from President Obama's inauguration until December), while part-time jobs have grown by only 420,000.

Not so fast.  Those who argue that the jobs we've added are of lower quality than those lost during the recession base that argument on the U6 rate, which by definition is "Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons."  In other words, it's not only those out of work plus those working part-time because they want full-time work but can't find it.  It's those that are flipping burgers at McDonald's when they'd rather be making mortgage loans, like they used to, which accounts for a large measure of job replacement and gains since the recession.

The U6 rate has definitely improved since the recession.  However, it remains at 9.2%, nearly double the headline unemployment rate (it was below 8% before the recession).  And, like the headline rate, a big part of why it's come down is that the labor force participation rate has fallen from 65.8% in February 2009 to 62.7% - the eighth-lowest level since 1978 - in December.

What does that mean, and why is it important?  It means that the percent of the population that is working or actively looking for work has declined by more than three percentage points during that span (that translates to about 7.3 million people).  Since the number of those working has increased, that means the number of those looking for work has declined precipitously.  Why?  Simple: they've given up looking, unable to find jobs.

Why is the number important?  It's a key determinant in any measure of unemployment.  The headline unemployment rate is those able and willing to, and actively looking for work, but unemployed, divided by all of those able and willing to work.  If you're not willing, you aren't counted in the participation rate, so you fall out of the jobless rate equation.  The same is true of the U6 rate.

In other words, as the number of discouraged unemployed - those who've given up looking for work - increases, driving the labor force participation down, both the headline unemployment rate and the U6 rate look better and better.  Statistics are like a bikini; what they don't reveal is often more interesting than what they do.

"Outpacing the rest of the developed world."

YF goes on to note that job growth in the U.S. has exceeded that in the rest of the G-7 combined (this point was also touted on CNBC Friday morning by the outgoing Labor Secretary).  Again, can't disagree.  However, it must be noted that the U.S. population is more than double that of the next-largest G-7 country, and is nearly equal to the combined populations of the other six members.  Still, it's true that even on a relative basis our job growth has outpaced countries like Japan, which remains depressed, and Italy and France, whose economies remain stagnant.  But it's a bit of a misleading argument without comparing the relative populations, labor force participation rates, and myriad other moving parts that influence one nation's job growth vs. another's.

YF led the piece with a statement that "Since the beginning of 2010, 15.8 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy."  "Since the beginning of 2010" - again with the data mining.  Let's look at some real numbers.

During the recession, a total of about nine million jobs were lost, counting only those months from July 2007 through September 2009 in which nonfarm payrolls declined.  During President Obama's tenure, the total gain in nonfarm payrolls was indeed about 15.8 million, counting only those months in which payrolls increased.  So we replaced the nine million jobs lost, and gained another 6.8 million.  That's very different from gaining 15.8 million jobs from a starting point of zero.  (The first 20 months of President Obama's tenure saw 16 months of job losses, totaling about 4.6 million jobs.)

If you average the net new jobs under President Obama's tenure over the 95 full months he's been in office, you get an anemic average monthly growth rate of about 71,000.  Hardly impressive.

However, none of my points above should be misconstrued as an argument that "President Obama hasn't created enough jobs."  Politicians don't create jobs, demand does.  There are three ways a President can foster job creation:

1.  Expand government employment, which brings with it a host of disadvantages, including larger deficits.  To his credit, federal employment has declined under President Obama - yet that actually makes him a job-cutter, not a job creator.

2.  Jawbone individual companies to hire workers or keep them in the U.S.  This is a pretty novel approach, and one that's been employed recently by President-elect Trump.  It's been somewhat effective, but it's a drop in the bucket.

3.  Foster an environment conducive to job creation.  Cut regulations, cut corporate and individual taxes, control health care costs, and otherwise get the hell out of the way of the private sector so it can do its thing.  Putting more money in individuals' pockets - whether from lower individual taxes or lower health care costs - will encourage them to spend, increasing demand, which increases jobs.  Cutting corporate taxes will make the U.S. more competitive relative to countries like Ireland, which has wooed away hordes of U.S. jobs since it slashed its corporate tax rate.  That's more employees in the U.S., with money to spend - again increasing demand, which creates even more jobs.  Cutting regulations (not to a ridiculous extent, just to a sane one) makes it easier for companies to do business, and if they can do more business, they'll need to create more jobs.

The first two means above are direct means, the third is indirect.  Regarding that point, has President Obama done any of those things?  Corporate and individual tax increases.  Increased regulation (Dodd-Frank, CFPB, etc., ad nauseum).  Obamacare, with its skyrocketing premiums.

Nope, nope and nope.

Can we really argue that the most business-unfriendly President of my lifetime has been the reason for any meaningful improvement in the business sector?

The bottom line is that it's fallacious to attribute job growth, stock market gains, GDP growth or any other economic metric directly to a President during his tenure.  There are too many moving parts, too many variables.  For example, do you think the Fed's zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing for nearly seven years might have something to do with economic and market performance under President Obama's tenure?

Also, there are lags between the implementation of policy (fiscal or monetary) and the effects of those policies.  The economy surged under President Clinton's watch, and the deficit turned into a surplus - in no small part due to the end of the Cold War under Reagan and Bush I, which paved the way for massive cuts in defense spending under Clinton.  It's taken several years for the Fed's low-rate policy to get the economy to the point where it can stand on its own, without life support.  And it's taken several years for the feared premium increases under Obamacare to rear their ugly heads.

So yes, we've seen considerable job growth since President Obama was sworn in, and a huge run-up in stock prices (even before the recent rally, which is a direct result of the market's hopeful expectations for a business-friendly administration).

But it's important to understand the distinction between coincidence and causation.  I've also gained weight since President Obama took office.  Does that mean he made me fat?  

The Return of the Curmudgeon

The curmudgeon is back, but not nearly as curmudgeonly - at least where the economy is concerned - as I was when I started this blog.  I'll let that story unfold in future posts.

As always, I will focus on speaking economic truth, because it's in short supply.  I find that understanding of economics is woefully lacking, including among some economists, as I've noted before.  And now more than ever, if you're getting your economic education from the media, you're only making matters worse in terms of your economic literacy.

I will also, as before, delve into politics, in part because economics and politics are bedfellows, and sometimes strange ones.

So a disclaimer is in order.  One, I'm not partisan.  In fact, I detest partisanship.  I'm a registered Independent, but have been registered in the past with both major parties, and voted across party lines when I was.  I do, however, lean conservative, especially on fiscal matters.

Two, I didn't vote for Donald Trump in the recent presidential election (I'll state why in an upcoming post).  Nor did I vote for Hillary Clinton (I'll address that too).  I wrote in the name of a third-party candidate who wasn't on the Kansas ballot, Evan McMullin.

So I'm likely to be an equal opportunity offender.  That's okay with me; at my age I've figured out that you can't make everyone happy, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake.

If you are partisan, you probably don't want to read this blog.  But if you're open to civil discourse and witty repartee, I encourage you to visit, and even to chime in with comments or questions - but again, only if they're civil.  If you can't be civil, and refuse to hear a viewpoint that differs from your own, you're part of the problem, and should probably be reading Drudge or Occupy Democrats.  That will feed your bias, and prevent you from being exposed to the views of those who may think differently.

The next several posts will, in fact, likely be related more to politics than economics, because of the time we're in.  I've had a lot on my mind about recent happenings, so I've got a few particular posts teed up.  Stay tuned.

If you're new here, welcome, and if you followed before, welcome back (and sorry for the hiatus).  Here we go ...

The Cliff Revisited

Friends, we are NOT going off the fiscal cliff.  Bank on it.

Now, let me just say that the consequences of doing so would not be so dire as the mainstream media would have you believe.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that heading over the precipice would subtract 2.9% from GDP in 2013.  The latest Bloomberg consensus forecast pegs GDP growth for 2013 at 2.0%, so that would mean negative GDP of 0.9% - a recession, but the mildest in post-WWII history.  For perspective, the trough of the last recession was at -8.9% GDP.

Granted, the expiry of the Bush tax cuts for all Americans would crimp spending.  But spending's lackluster right now anyway - retailers are forecasting such a ho-hum holiday shopping season that they're turning Thanksgiving into Black Thursday by opening at 7 or 8 pm, barely giving Mom time to clear away the turkey leftovers.  Analysis by SL Advisors posted on Seeking Alpha estimates that this would detract 1.3% from GDP.

But the media would have you believe that we'd face the Mother of All Recessions, an economic Armageddon that would throw us back into the Stone Age.  And that hue and cry alone will spur the pols to come up with some compromise, kicking the debt can down the road a la Greece.

SL Advisors predict that the compromise will include a return to pre-Bush tax rates on the "rich," however we define them - joint incomes over $250-500k, somewhere in that range.  The CBO estimates that will result in a 0.1% drag on GDP growth (the rich spend pretty much the same regardless of the economic climate or the tax environment).  They also predict that the Obama reduction in the FICA tax and emergency jobless bennies will be allowed to lapse, as neither party has expressed much interest in continuing them (good news for Social Security, as it's already bankrupt).  That will produce a 0.8% drag on GDP according to the CBO, because it affects more people (ie, it's not "progressive").

So we're going to see a hit of nearly 1% to GDP anyway, and it's going to come on the revenue side.  The mandated spending cuts?  They'll be minimal.  The 0.4% automatic defense cuts won't happen, and the automatic cuts of the same magnitude in non-defense discretionary spending will be reduced and deferred long into the future (read: after the next election).

So the bottom line is that Washington will remain the media's lap dog and forge some compromise that will increase debt, maintain spending, and soak the rich, and the result will be another year of lackluster output growth.

And guess what?  We'll wind up in recession anyway - not because of the cliff, but because of other headwinds, including Europe, which Nouriel Roubini - who called the housing bust and the last recession - predicts will spread from the EU's periphery to its core.  Europe is already in recession, and that means that Bloomberg consensus forecast for 2013 US GDP is already too rosy.

SL Advisors go on to say this:  "Under different circumstances during these negotiations the President and Congressional leaders would be maintaining a watchful eye on the bond market for its approval of fiscal discipline, and to a lesser degree the rating agencies.  Except that, as a barometer of such things the bond market no longer works.  The Federal Reserve is by far the biggest buyer of bonds and since they're not economically motivated interest rates won't be allowed to respond by voting on the outcome."

But again, it's not the bond market that'll drive policy.  It's headlines like this one: "The Economy (Probably) Can't Survive a Short Dive Into Austerity Crisis."  "Can't survive?"  Really?  Ah, sensationalism - thy name is Legion.

A Washington Post headline recently screamed that "2 million could lose unemployment benefits unless Congress extends program."  The article notes that "many jobless Americans have come to depend on the benefits."  And there's the answer to the question of whether the benefits should be extended.

A Guy You Could Have a Beer With

Watching the debates (a sometimes painful experience), or more accurately, the post-game analysis (which could benefit from a little John Madden, frankly), I keep hearing this recurring theme of how the candidates "scored" with respect to their grasp of the issues, their facts, etc., and their "likeability."

There must be something to this.  Watching the little graphic that CNN has running below the shot of the candidates talking, the one that shows the reaction of supposedly uncommitted voters to what's being said (kind of like a polygraph, I guess), I'm left with the impression that a candidate could say, "Yada, yada, yada, and yada," and the line would still move.  And these people will vote.  God save us all.

And I also hear people say, "He has good experience," or "He has a grasp of the issues," or "I like his stance on Issue X," but then they'll add - "But is he the kind of guy I could have a beer with?"

Are you kidding me?  Really?  Do any of us thing we stand a snowball's chance in Death Valley of having a beer with the Prez?

And honestly, is the kind of guy we'd have a beer with the guy we want to be President?  I mean, I've had beers with a lot of guys in my lifetime, and I have to say that none of them (no offense to my friends here) is someone that I'd want having their finger on the red button.

Especially after a couple of beers.

And I assume they feel the same way about me, which is fine.  (For the record, no one has ever suggested that I run for office.  A few of my friends have said they'd like to have me as Fed Chairman, a role in which, of course, I'd be stellar.

But seriously.  My good friend Steve, with whom I downed a few beers a couple of weeks back when I was in Denver on business (spreading my usual economic doom and gloom for a client), was emailing me not long ago about how he wished he ran the country.  And our discourse on that topic led to our Grand Plan of having matching leotards, complete with capes that would have our nicknames on them (Pogo and Thor, in case you were wondering - he's Pogo, I'm Thor, and you don't need to know why), and we'd have Big Wheels on which we'd tear through the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Fun stuff for Pogo and Thor, not so much for the rest of you, I'm afraid.

I don't want a guy who I'd like to have a beer with to be President.  I want a guy (or gal, makes no difference to me) who knows what they're doing, has the character to do it while upholding and not embarrassing the office, and will comport him- or herself in accordance with the task at hand.  If he or she would be a total bore, or boor, or bear, to have a beer with, so be it.  I'm good with that.

However, this seems to be a matter of no small import to many voters (shudders and face-palms), so I'll weigh in.  Bear in mind that I'm not a fan of President Obama, so maybe this colors my view of his likeability.  On the other hand, I'm about the most objective guy I know - at least in my opinion.

Much has been made of Romney's gaffe about the 47%.  But really, how different is that from Obama's infamous comment four years back about people "clinging to their guns and their God?"  In fact, Barry seems to have this arrogant elitist view of much of the American populace - and maybe the rest of the world.  Remember when he spent some of his supporters' money on the campaign trail to visit his long-lost granny in Kenya?  He hadn't seen her since childhood, but he took time from his busy campaign schedule to pay her a visit (on someone else's dime, of course).

And what did he do with his time with her?  Had a few photos taken, and split.

I've been to Africa, and I know how people live there.  I understand that Granny O is very poor, like many Africans.  But Barry didn't bring her gifts, or leave her with some cash, or even spend the day catching up.  He got a photo op, and he moved on.

He did the same thing when he visited Elkhart, IN not long after he was elected.  He went there to talk about all the people who were out of work, and who had to go to food pantries.  He stood outside a factory and gave a pretty speech.  Then he split.

In response, I actually found one of the Elkhart food pantries, and sent them a check.  I figured if our President was going to use them for a photo op, I'd at least help them out a bit if I could.

Romney, on the other hand, can tell you stories (corroborated by people who've known him for a long time) about how he used personal funds to help people in his congregation that were in need when he was a pastor, or how he visited people in the hospital, just to visit them - no cameras, no reporters, just a guy caring about his fellow man.

So which guy would I rather have a beer with?  The one who would take the time to actually talk to me over that beer, to get to know me, to inquire about how I was doing and how my family was?  Or the guy who'd have the White House press corps there, snapping pics while he smiled and put his arm around my shoulders and hoisted his mug - then left me with the tab?