A very basic primer on deciding between Romney and Obama in November

In business there is something called “sunk costs” which refers to funds that have been spent and are unrecoverable. At any given point sunk costs are irrelevant to the decisions going forward. An example of this would be a company that has spent a billion dollars building a plant and now has to choose whether or not to spend another billion dollars hiring staff and actually operating the plant. At the point of the decision the only thing that should be relevant to the decision makers is what makes best sense for the firm going forward. Does the company make more money by staffing and operating the plant or by selling it? The decision should be based solely on what’s best going forward, with no sentimental attachment to the billion dollars already spent building the plant.

The key element of sunk costs is recognizing that you can’t change or undo anything that has already happened and therefore the focus of your attention should be what you can do today to impact tomorrow.

The last three years should be looked at as sunk costs… or simply unalterable history. The November election cannot turn back the clock. It can only look at a course for the future.

As such, voters should evaluate Barack Obama and Mitt Romney as a board of directors would if they were seeking to hire a president or CEO to run their organization.

The first thing you’d do is take a cursory look at their resumes. Obama earned an undergraduate degree from Columbia while Romney earned his from BYU. Both men earned graduate degrees at Harvard. On that score you’d have to say that the men were very similar. As for their success as students it is not currently possible to compare the two. Romney graduated in the top 5% of his class at Harvard while Obama has refused to release any of his school transcripts.

The next thing you might look at their relevant work experience.

Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago, taught Constitutional law at Columbia, was elected to the Illinois Senate and then the US Senate. His most important work experience comes from his three years as President of the United States.

Romney worked as a business consultant, founded a private equity firm, managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and served as Governor of Massachusetts for four years.

Finally you might look at their family situations and personal life as you wouldn’t want your new leader embarrassing your organization. Obama is a nondenominational Christian and is by all measures a devoted husband and dedicated father of two little girls. Romney is Mormon, has been married to his wife for 43 years and the couple has raised five boys.

On first blush both men seem to have the basic qualifications necessary to be President. But one needs to look at the experience a bit deeper now.

Barack Obama’s career was fairly unremarkable prior to entering the White House. As such, his best case can be made when looking at his time in office. He was presented with a difficult situation of the American economy in 2009. What has he done? The most obvious thing is that he’s borrowed and spent a great deal of money. Results? Higher unemployment than when he took over. Fewer people are actually working than when he became President. Inflation is 3% higher although the economy is experiencing stagnant, albeit positive, growth; the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. He passed ObamaCare and was subsequently sued by 27 states and the law is in front of the Supreme Court. Osama Bin Laden is dead. American troops are out of Iraq.

Romney’s work experience is far more telling: While at Bain Capital he earned his shareholders billions of dollars via his rescuing and restructuring companies – although not all such attempts were successful. In Olympic host city Salt Lake, he took a Winter Games that what was on course to lose hundreds of millions of dollars (which is the norm for host cities) and turned it into a money maker – to the tune of $100 million – and a successful Olympics to boot. So too as Governor of Massachusetts, where he left the state with a surplus after having entered office with an expected $3 billion shortfall.

Romney’s tenure as Governor was anything but spectacular however. Although he helped the city of Boston climb out of its Big Dig disaster, he left with a 34% approval rating and budget deficits returned once he left office. He also implemented the blueprint for ObamaCare in Massachusetts during his tenure.

As a member of the nation’s board of directors tasked with choosing a new leader you might want a viable third candidate, but you don’t have one. As such, the question is who will do a better job of running the country for the next four years. The answer is actually crystal clear. While Mitt Romney’s tenure as Governor of Massachusetts was less than spectacular, his business career was everything including spectacular. In addition, at the Olympics he had to deal with a plethora of international organizations, federal, state and local governments and everything was under klieg lights unlike any other event around the world. And he performed that job flawlessly.

Barack Obama on the other hand has made an absolute mess of the US economy, he has divided the country and has accumulated more debt in three years than any person in human history. At the same time he has discouraged millions of Americans from looking for work while dramatically increasing the number of people on the government dole. At the same time he has promised to put the United States on the socialist path of Europe, just as that continent is disintegrating.

American success was built on the backs of entrepreneurs, innovators, inventors, capitalists and workers seeking their own piece of the American Dream. Unleashing the power of that lineup to help the country emerge from the never-ending economic quagmire we find ourselves in is going to take someone who has a basic understanding of what it takes to incentivize those players to not only want to get back into the game of productivity and profitability, but more importantly, understand what keeps them from doing so… i.e. how organizations function or don’t. The organization in this case is the United States and the thing that keeps it from functioning properly is government regulations and interference.

When the American people walk into the voting booths in November and decide which lever to pull, they should imagine themselves pulling the lever for the candidate who is going to help not just them, but the employer who pays their salary or the customer who buys their products or the employee who works for them. Or if they don’t’ have a job, who can create an economic foundation for enough to be created for them to have a choice as to which one to take. They should then open their eyes and pull the lever for Mitt Romney.

Poor people will prosper under 999 - and so will the rest of the country.

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan is imperfect, but it’s by far the best plan on the table. As such, criticism of 9-9-9 comes from all quarters.

The left is unhappy that its egalitarian nature is the opposite of the progressive tax structure we’ve had for a century. I suspect however that it is not simple tax policy that drives their antipathy, it’s revenge. You don’t have to listen very long to one of President Obama’s “fair share” speeches to recognize it. Or watch much of the “Occupy your city here” demonstrations going on around the country to see the envy. The notion of those fat cat Wall Street bankers paying the same tax rate as a single mother of three who works two jobs to support her children is simply unacceptable.

The other main criticism from the left is that poor will pay more taxes than they do now while that rich will pay less. That is simply not true. Let’s imagine the most difficult of possible situations, where a family of four has an income of $25,000 a year, all in the form of untaxed government benefits. Let’s assume they spend every dollar they have every year. As it stands today, they would ostensibly pay no taxes.

In reality however if they spend their entire $25,000 income they are actually paying $5,750 in embedded taxes. According to the people over at FairTax.org, 23% of every dollar a consumer spends in the United States is due to federal taxes levied on employees, on corporate profits, in the form of excise taxes, etc. If that is the case, then when that family spends its $25,000, in reality, $5,750 of that is for federal taxes.

Under Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan that 23% would go away. Here’s an example: Let’s assume this family goes to the store and buys $100 worth of groceries. Under the current system, $23 of that total represents embedded taxes. If you remove that $23 from the total, then the cost of those groceries without taxes is $77. That 23% of embedded taxes would now become 9% as both profits and employees have a 9% tax rate. Therefore, the price on the shelf of the goods will now reflect the 9% embedded taxes and would cost $84. At the register the 9% sales tax would be added and the final price becomes $91.50. That’s 8.5% less than they would have spent under the current system.

If you expand the $100 to the family’s entire $25,000 income, they would actually end up spending $22,962 rather than their entire $25,000. In this case they actually end the year $2,037 richer than they do under the current system. While prices would not come down the day after 9-9-9 went into effect, competition would bring them down rapidly.

As for a family with an income that actually pays taxes, in almost all circumstances they come out ahead via the 9-9-9 plan. Read Ed Morrissey’s piece over at HotAir.com to compare the numbers with a family of 4 earning $50,000. In the few cases where the family does not come out ahead, they too will pay less in taxes as a result of the lower embedded taxes.

From the right criticism comes in the form of suggesting that it has no chance of ever getting enacted. This is a red herring. If conservatives take the White House and the Senate, it will pass easily. And they won’t need 60 votes to get it done as Harry Reid has decided that the nuclear option is no longer particularly toxic.

A more substantive complaint from the right is the very understandable notion that they don’t want the kleptocrats in Washington to have another tool with which to beat the American taxpayer about the head, i.e. a sales tax that starts out as 9-9-9 could easily become 10-10-10 or 25-25-25. I can certainly appreciate that as our current system started out with a top rate of 7% in 1913 but reached 77% by 1918.

That rate creep danger does exist, but the truth of the matter is that it already does. If the passage of the wholly unconstitutional ObamaCare demonstrates one thing, it’s that Washington thinks there are no limits to its power already. It’s only the Tea Party and a few Republicans who are keeping a sales tax from happening today. Remember Nancy Pelosi proposing the VAT not so long ago? Besides, Cain is proposing that a balanced budget constitutional amendment be passed, and I would recommend that he adds language that requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to increase taxes. As a cherry on top, the 9-9-9 plan would eliminate the ability of politicians to skew the tax code to help their friends or harm their enemies.

At the end of the day, the thing that is most compelling about the 9-9-9 plan is the economic growth it will stimulate. This growth comes from two directions. The first is the $350 billion Americans spend each year simply complying with federal tax regulations.(here and here) That is the equivalent of a boost of 2% to the economy, or a $1,000 per person that Americans would have to spend. The second part of that is the investment and jobs that would be created. Today the United States corporate income tax rate is 35%. If the corporate income tax rate went from 35% to the 9% included in the 9-9-9 plan, you would see trillions of dollars in investment flood into the United States as companies repatriated profits held overseas and sought stronger financial results.

To put that change in perspective, under the current tax structure a company that earns $1 billion in the United States pays $350 million in corporate taxes, leaving the shareholders with a net profit of $650 million. If the 9-9-9 plan were in place those same shareholders would instead enjoy a net income of $910 million, fully $260 million more, or 40% more money in their pockets. The resulting rate would be amongst the lowest in the world and would make the United States an investment magnet for investors and companies from around the world.

Then of course there are jobs. I began this post talking about how the poor would not be negatively impacted by 9-9-9. Actually they will be positively impacted. What is the single most powerful way to turn poor people into middle class taxpayers? More and better paying jobs, of course. With a 9.1% unemployment rate there is little incentive for companies to increase the wages of their employees. There are simply too many people willing to step in and fill the shoes of any disgruntled employee. At an unemployment rate of 4% the dynamic is turned on its head where employees are far better positioned to demand and get wage increases. As economic growth creates millions of jobs and as demand for workers begins to outstrip supply, the value of those employees increases and their compensation follows suit.

At the end of the day 9-9-9 is by far the best plan on the table. It’s easy to understand, it saves Americans money via lower prices, it means more investment, a growing economy, more jobs and higher wages. If Americans really want to return to prosperity, 9-9-9 will get them there. The question is, do they have the courage to finally walk away from incremental change and do something bold?