Mitt Romney Archive

Administrators

2012-12-18T10:56:00.000-08:00

Until we have algorithms that can automatically promote better arguments (by rewarding good behaviors, punishing bad behaviors, and removing spam, and trolls) we may need administrators.

There are a number of ways of finding administrators. We could draw from the field of conflict resolution and dispute mediation. For instance we could offer training and give tests for skills that have been proven to resolve conflicts. There is a whole field of conflict resolution, which already has standards of training for good moderators.

For specific arguments, we could give slightly more weight to opinions by “certifiable experts” in that field. For each person who asserts they are an expert we could have an algorithm to determine how many extra points we would give their vote. I propose the following equation and list of definitions:

· PR_n: Number of professors who remember or recommend a student.

· PA_n: Number of professors who were asked to recommend a student. The database would have a form for sending a recommendation. It would have a list of known professors at a university that it would send the request to.

· C: Constant. This is needed because if you ask 1 teacher, and they recommend you, then we still are not 100% sure that you went to the school, or were a good student. The constant results in a situation where getting two of two recommendations would be better than getting 1 of 1, even though they are both 100%.

· VES_n: Verifier’s expertise Score. A teacher’s level of expertise would be obtained by a similar equation, with their peers being the verifiers for each area of study.

· RS_n: Recommender’s score. This multiple would allow teachers to weigh their recommendation, perhaps on a scale of 0 to 1.

· RS_{n With a line over it}: This is the average score given out by a given teacher

· SR_n: Number of fellow students who remember or recommend a student

· SR_n: Number of fellow students who were asked to recommend a student. Similar to above, the database would have a form for sending a recommendation.

· s_n: Score on a test designed to determine proficiency

· S_nbar: Average

· GPA: Grade point average

The main Algorithm

2012-12-13T10:12:00.000-08:00

Abstract

I propose that we build the SQL code that would facilitate an online forum. This forum would use a relational database to track reasons to agree and disagree with conclusions. It would also allow you to submit a belief as a reason to support another belief (see image 1 below):

Figure 1: Arguments used to support other arguments

Arguments are currently made on websites, in books, and even in videos and songs. It would be powerful to outline all the arguments that agree or disagree with a conclusion and put them on the same page as seen below:

Figure 2: Arguments go from websites, books, songs, videos, into a relational database and are presented with their structure

Having the structure of how all these arguments are used to support each other, could allow us to automatically strengthen or weaken a conclusion's score based on the score of their assumptions.

The purpose of the Idea Stock Exchange is to find ways to give conclusions scores based on the quality and quantity of reasons to agree or disagree with them with an open sourced SQL database.

Pros and Cons are a tried and true method to evaluate a conclusion

Many people, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin advocated making a list of pros and cons, to help them make decisions. The assumption is that the quantity and quality of the reasons to agree or disagree with a proposed conclusion has some bearing as to underlining strength of that conclusion. I wholeheartedly agree.

No one has yet harnessed the power of Pros and Cons in the information age. We can.

However, now that we have the internet, we can crowd source the brainstorming of reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion.

The only trick is how do you evaluate the strength of each pro or con? Many people suggest putting the strongest pros or cons at the top of the list. Also, if we had enough time we might make a separate list FOR each pro or con.

For instance, FDR had to decide if we should join WWII or not. One pro might be that the German leaders were bad. There were many reasons to support this belief, and this belief was used to support another belief.

Not very many people have enough time to do a pro or con list for each pro or con. But on the internet we keep making the same arguments over and over again. For thousands of years we have been repeating the same arguments that Aristotle and Homer have made. Most of our arguments have been made thousands or millions of times. However no one has ever taken the time to put them into a database, and outline how they relate to each other. We can change this.

I propose that we find algorithms that attempt to promote good conclusions and arguments. This simplest and best method of scoring conclusions is to counting the number of reasons to agree, and subtracting the number of reasons that disagree. Because some arguments are better than other arguments, we should repeat this process for every argument until we reach verifiable data. The following equation represents this plan:

· n = number of “steps” the current arguments is removed from conclusion

We can use algebra to represent each term, and make it look a little more mathematical, with the below formula:

· n: Number of “steps” the current arguments is removed from conclusion

· A_(n,i)/n: When n=1 we are looking at arguments that are used directly to support or oppose a conclusion. The 2^ndsubscript is “i”. This is used to indicate that we total all the reasons to agree. So when n=1, we could have 5 “i’s” indicating there are 5 reasons to agree. These would be labeled A_(1,1), A_(1,2), A_(1,3), A_(1,4), and A_(1,5). N on the bottom indicates that reasons to agree with reasons to agree only contribute ½ a point to the overall conclusion. Thus reasons to agree with reasons to agree with reasons to agree would only contribute 1/3 of a point, and so on. If we decide to make the bottom of the equation n x 2, then these would contribute 1/6 of a point. It is obvious that some of their score should contribute to the conclusion scores, because weakening an assumption should automatically weaken all the conclusions built on that assumption. We could continually update n to give reasonable result, or each website could use its own secret sauce.

· D_(n,j)/n Ds are reasons to disagree, and work the same as As but the number of reasons to disagree, are subtracted from the conclusion score. Therefore, if you have more reasons to disagree, you will have a negative score. “J” is used, just to indicate that each reason is independent of the other.

· The denominator is the total number of reasons to agree or disagree. This normalizes the equation, resulting the conclusion score (CS) representing the total percentage of reasons that agree. The conclusion score will range between -100% and 100% (or -1 and +1)

The above equation would work very well, if people submitted arguments that they honestly felt supported or opposed conclusions. We could probably find informal ways of making this work, similar to how Wikipedia trusts people, and has a team of editors to ensure quality. However, we could also introduce formal ways to discourage people from using bad logic.

For instance, people could submit that the “grass is green” as a reason to support the conclusion that we should legalize drugs. The belief that the grass is green, will have some good reasons to support it, and may have a high score. At first, to avoid this problem, I would just have editors remove bad faith arguments. But a formalized process would be to have for each argument a linkage score, between -1 and +1 that gets multiplied by the argument’s score that represents the percentage of that argument’s points that should be given to the conclusions points.

I believe the most elegant way to come up with a linkage score would be to just make a new argument, that “a” supports “b”, with all the normal reasons to agree and disagree. However, I also propose the percentage of up-votes compared to the percentage of down-votes and other good idea promoting algorithms below.

Also, without editors, you would run into the problem of duplication. If we had this at the time of the Gulf Wars, people could have been submitting the belief that Saddam Hussein was a bad person as a reason to support the belief that we should go to war. People would submit the belief that we don’t go to war with everyone who is bad, as a way of weakening the linkage between this conclusion and argument. But someone might also submit the belief that he was “evil”. How much is the world “evil” and “bad” the same thing? Is Evil just a worse kind of bad? These questions could be quantified, if for each argument, we brainstormed a list of “other ways of saying the same thing”. Of course we would use all of our algorithms to determine to what degree they are the same thing. If we determine that two items are 85% the same thing, then when both of them are used as reasons to support the same thing, then they would only count as 1.15x their two scores, not 2x.

Examples

We might be arguing the conclusion that “It was good for us to join WWII.” Someone may submit the argument that “Nazis were doing bad things” as a reason to support the conclusion about entering the war. The belief that Nazis were doing bad things might already have a score. Let’s suppose that this idea score has a high ranking of 99%. This might be awarded a linkage score of 90% (as a reason to support the conclusion that we should have gone to WWII). In this situation it would contribute 0.495 points (0.99 X 0.5) to the conclusion score for the beliefs that “It was good for us to join WWII”. Someone else might submit a belief that “Nazis were submitting wide scale systematic genocide” as a reason to support the belief that “It was good for us to go to WWII”. Because we don’t go to war with every country that “does bad things”, we would assume that this linkage score would be higher, perhaps a 98%.

For example the belief that Nazi Germany leaders were evil, is a belief with many argument to support it. However it can also be used as an argument to support other conclusions, such as the belief that it was good of us to join WWII.

Assumptions

· Reason ≝ Belief used to support another belief(For example the belief that Nazi Germany leaders were evil, is a belief with many argument to support it. However it can also be used as an argument to support other conclusions, such as the belief that it was good of us to join WWII).

· Good Belief ≝ Good Reasons to Agree > Good Reasons to disagree

· Bad Belief ≝ Good Reasons to Agree > Good Reasons to disagree

· Great Belief ≝ Good Reasons to Agree >> Good Reasons to disagree

· Terrible Belief≝ Good Reasons to Agree << Good Reasons to disagree

There are many things web designers can do to help people resolve their conflicts

2012-12-12T10:39:00.001-08:00

Reasons to agree:

It would help us move towards understanding if web forum designers rewarded those who can demonstrate that they understand those with whom they disagree with.

There are many ways discussion forum designers can reward those who demonstrate that they understand those whom they disagree with.

Web-designers could test users ability to properly identify similar concepts, from multiple choice options.

Perhaps people who have their comments evaluated could have special consideration in evaluating weather or not the person who disagreed got their statement right.

Maybe before you disagree with someone you have to put into your own words exactly which part you disagreed with. You could do this by highlighting or bolding the part that you disagree with.

Web designers would help online debate if they created web forums that allowed users to identify specifically which portions of text they agree and disagree with.

Not identifying exactly which portion you disagree with results in confusion.
Psychologist could help out in this section.

We should structure online debates so reasons to agree and disagree with a belief are on the same page

2012-12-12T10:39:00.000-08:00

You can't really win an argument by ignoring your opponent, and their arguments, and data.

If we entered our beliefs and arguments into databases, there are many features of relational databases that could help us come to better conclusions

2012-12-12T10:38:00.000-08:00

If our beliefs and arguments were entered into a relational databases, we could:

tag arguments as either a reason to agree or disagree with a particular belief. This would be beneficial because:

We could post the results so that reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion would be on the same webpage.
It would be beneficial to have all the reasons to agree and disagree with a belief on the same page.

assign scores to arguments
assign scores to beliefs, based on the score of the arguments for and against the beliefs
assign scores to beliefs, based on other beliefs that are used to support or oppose them. For instance the belief that the middle class should get a tax break, has many reasons to agree or disagree with it, and it can also be used as a reasons to support or oppose other beliefs, like the belief that we should support politicians who agree or disagree with a middle class tax cut.
tag them with intelligent meta data, to allow computers to help organize the argument for us.

We need to back up our beliefs with clear logic and well found reasoning

2012-12-12T10:37:00.000-08:00

Reasons or arguments people use to agree:

Evidence-free metaphysical speculations or politicized wish-fulfillment fantasies will destroy us.

We can't just adopt socialism because it makes us feel good, without first knowing that it will work, and that it won't put our good freedom loving nice guys at a disadvantage in competition with non freedom loving dictators.

Bertrand Russell was right when he said. "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true."
When you make an assumption you make an ass out of you and me.
If we don't use good logic to make our arguments, we will come to bad decisions.
If we want to survive as a species, we need to make good decisions.
Our beliefs affect our happiness

If you want to enjoy your life, you should spend your time on rewarding activities.

Our beliefs affect our actions.
Our beefs affect our personal success

If believe it is important to not be seen as a a nerd, and we believe nerds are well educated, we will not want to be well educated. Your chances for success will be improved with education.

Our conclusions and reasons to coming to them are all tied together in complex nonlinear ways similar to a relationship database

2012-12-12T10:36:00.000-08:00

Our conclusions have many reasons to agree and disagree with them and each of these beliefs has many reasons to agree and disagree with them. As these arguments branch out and arguments multiply, it becomes too much for our brains to handle all at once.
Assumptions are beliefs that are used to support other beliefs. If you change one assumption, it will change the strength of each conclusion that builds on that assumption. In a relational database you can say 5 people live together, then when you change one person's address, it can change all of their addresses. In a similar way, if we strengthen or weaken any assumption in a relational database, it will strengthen or weaken all of the conclusions that are based on these assumptions. Defining all these relationships is the only way we can ever make any progress at weighing all the data that we have.

We should crowd source a database of things that people believe and arguments they use

2012-12-12T10:35:00.001-08:00

Reasons or arguments people use to agree:

We need to back up our beliefs with good logic Score: 9
We can build a relational database that outlines our beliefs relatively cheaply
If we entered our beliefs and arguments into databases, there are many features of relational databases that could help us come to better conclusions.
If we can sequence millions of lines of Human DNA, you would think that we could organize our thoughts and beliefs.
You need advanced scientific methods to sequence the human genome, but all you need is a database to outline the things people believe.
If you use a relational database to associate arguments with the beliefs they support, you could design a scoring system that analyze the validity people's arguments, and then the cumulative validity of their beliefs.

A relational database is the best way of outlining our beliefs

2012-12-12T10:35:00.000-08:00

Reasons or arguments people use to agree:

Our beliefs are are all all tied together in nonlinear ways similar to a relationship database.

Other good idea promoting algorithms: laws

2012-12-12T10:31:00.000-08:00

I believe that we can count the number of laws that agree or disagree with a belief, as a way of measuring how much society believes something is wrong.

For example every society believes that murder is wrong, and often punishes it with some sort of criminal justice program.

A way of quantifying this so that you can give scores to conclusions based on the quantity of laws that are said to support a belief (like murder is bad) and the quality of arguments that a law supports a certain belief about a behavior being bad, the relationship score between the belief and the law, the severity of punishment for breaking the law, and the relative number of laws that can be said to agree or disagree with the belief, or any of the supporting arguments, would be to make an equation and build it in software.

A way of counting all of this with a powerful algorithm could be expressed this way:

Or we could represent the math more simply by substituting algebra, with the following definitions:

Definitions:

· L_An/L_Dn:Laws that are argued to agree or disagree or disagree with a conclusion

· L_An+L_Dn::Number of laws submitted in this forum as reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion. I’m just trying to find some way of normalizing this factor, or weigh it, so that it doesn’t carry too much or too little weight. Obviously, like any other factor on this forum, we could tweak multiplication factors, or allow users to tweak them.

· LS_n: Linkage Score: The linkage would become its own argument, with reasons to agree, and a score between -1 and 1. A negative score would be a law that actually makes a counter argument to the intended suggestion, 0 has no relation, and 1 fully supports the intended conclusion.

· P_sn: Punishment severity. For instance is the punishment a felony or a misdemeanor. How many years of prison are people typically punished.

Examples: Is the Burqa so important that it should be required, or so bad it should be banned?

For example, the fact that almost all countries outlaw “murder of innocent adults” represents the amount of validity that most societies attribute to a belief. It may be rare that you would have laws that disagree and agree on non controversial topics. However, there are countries that ban and require women to wear Burqas. A way of measuring if mankind thinks it is wrong to wear the burqa would be to take the number of countries that ban them (France, etc) and subtract the number of countries that require them (Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, etc). Depending on what side of this is used to support, you would subtract or add the percentage of countries that ban it compared to the total number of countries that have laws on the use of an item.

Examples: Is shooting an intruder a good activity that helps protect law followers, or is it a bad activity that ends a life too soon

You could add the percentage of states that say it is wrong to shoot an intruder, as evidence to support the belief that is wrong to do this.

An open letter to Math teachers

2012-12-10T18:32:00.000-08:00

I am writing you to ask for your assistance in promoting "good idea promoting algorithms" such as the following:

The above formula would work in an environment were you were able to submit reasons to agree or disagree with a belief, and then you could submit reasons to agree or disagree with those arguments. With this format it place you could count the reasons to agree and subtract the number of reasons to disagree, and then you could integrate the series of reasons to agree with reasons to agree.

You should use this equation because:

It is unique. I have never seen someone use an algorithm in an attempt to promote good ideas. Math can become more interesting when kids see the variety of ways it can be applied.
Kids are idealistic, and often want to improve the world. Challenging them to try to come up with a good idea promoting algorithm can use this energy, to learn math.
This simple that counts the reasons to agree with a conclusion, could change the wold, similar to how Google's web-link counting algorithm changed the world. When lots of people link to a website, Google assumes that website is a good one. Then when that good website links to another website, Google assumes the 2nd website is a good one. Similarly when you submit good reasons to support an argument, a smart web forum would also give points to the conclusions that are built on that assumption.
The more people make good idea promoting algorithms, the less stupid world we will live in.

Other Factors: Stuff, like movies, songs, experts, etc that agaree or disagree

2012-12-09T08:48:00.000-08:00

Similar to how I say books can support or oppose different conclusions, movies (often documentaries) can support or oppose different conclusions. Rotten tomatoes gives scores to movies. All of this data could be imported, as well as the formal logical arguments that a movie actually attempts to support or oppose a belief.

L = Link score. When we submit beliefs as reasons to support other beliefs, and give higher scores to conclusions that have more reasons to agree with them, people will try to submit beliefs that don’t really support the conclusion. For instance someone might post the belief that the grass is green as a reason to believe the NY Giants will win the super bowl. The beliefs that the grass is green will receive a high score, but the “Link Score” as will be close to zero.

* As we work this out we may have to apply multiplication factors to not give too much or too little weight to a factor.

** Who has a “.edu” e-mail address from the philosophy department of an accredited university

Other Factors: Logic Professors

2012-12-09T08:47:00.002-08:00

I had a logic professor. He was in the philosophy department, and he taught a course on logic. Every professor has a few philosophy teachers that teach formal logic.

I think if we tracked the number of logic professors that "certify" the logic of an argument and subtract the number of logic professors that "discount" the logic of an argument, we could use that data to promote ideas that have been more thoroughly examined, and supported.

This is the best equation I can come up with for adding points to a belief based on the number logic professors that support or oppose the logic used in an argument.

I would love your feedback!

Below is an explanation of each term.

NPA/D = Number of times a certified logic instructor has verified/discounted the logic of a reason to disagree
Summing “NPA or NPD” would mean that if a logic professor disagreed with a reasons to support your conclusion, that would take away ½ a point, because that action is twice removed.

Other Factors: Books that agree or Disagree

2012-12-09T08:47:00.001-08:00

I think if we tracked the number of books that are suggested as reasons to agree with a conclusion, or disagree, we could come up with algorithms that use this data to promote beliefs that have been more thoroughly examined, and supported.

This is the best equation I can come up with for adding points to a belief based on the number of and the quality of each book that is suggested as a reason to support or disagree with a conclusion.

I would love your feedback!

Below is an explanation of each term.

B = Books that have been said to support or oppose the given conclusion
BS = Books Score. Books scores can take into account number of books that are sold, as well as the score given from book reviewers, etc
BLS = Book link score. You can have a good book, that doesn’t actually support the proposed belief. Each argument that a book supports a belief, becomes its own argument that that its own book “linkage score” that is given points according to the above formula

Other Factors: Up/Down Votes

2012-12-09T08:47:00.000-08:00

I think if we tracked the number of up votes and compared it to the number of down votes it might tell us a little about the quality of an argument, or at least its perceived quality.

I think the more information the better. This is the best equation I can come up with for adding points to a belief based on the number of up or down votes. I would love your feedback.

Below is an explanation of each term.

Up/Down Votes

UV/DV = Up or Down Vote
#U = Number of Users
We will have overall up or down votes. We will also have votes on specific attributes like: logic, clarity, originality, verifiability, accuracy, etc.

Put your money where your BRAIN is: how money could be used to help weigh the validity of a belief

2012-12-07T06:24:00.000-08:00

This function will add points to conclusions that have money invested in them or their supporting arguments, and subtract points from conclusions that tend to have money invested against them.

Why do this? Because Vegas understands the relative strength of football team. Wall Street understands the relative strength of each company, and Intrade will tell you which president will win. Why don't we use “markets” to tell us the relative strength of each argument, before we make life or death decision in the Middle East? Why do we have more processing power dedicated to analyzing football games than we do life or death problems?

Below is an explanation of the terms in my equation. I would love input!

My equation in words:

My equation in math:

M_an/n: When n is 1, this equation will add all the money invested in a belief. When n is equal to 2 it will take the money invested in arguments that support the belief, divides it by 2, adds that to the conclusion score. Money invested in a belief, +1/2 the money invested in beliefs that agree with this belief, etc – Money invested against this belief, -1/2 the money invested in beliefs that disagree with this belief, etc
M_dn/n: This equation does the same as above but subtracts the total amount of money invested in arguments that disagree with it.
TM = Total Money invested in the forum
#B = number of beliefs
The average amount of money invested in an idea = TM / #B. The goal of this idea is to assign 1 point for the average belief, and 2 points for a belief that has twice the average amount of money invested.
The assumption is that people would be able to purchase “stock” in a belief at its idea score. They would purchase it assuming that the idea score was going to go up. We would have to set the transaction fee high enough, to ensure that we don’t lose money, and only smart people are making money. We would also only sell stock in relatively stable ideas.

The code for an application of my equation in SQL:

Coming soon! As soon as I learn SQL... Please help by contributing to my open source google project: http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/

Your equation in math:

Do you have a better equation that would use people's aversion to part with their money, that would promote good arguments, and beliefs? Leave a comment, or a link, and I will link to your project. I don't need the credit, I just don't want to live in a world of non-structured beliefs, and conclusions that people don't even try to support in an intelligent manor. Is money the answer? No, but it could help people try to really evaluate the true strength of a conclusion, if they felt that that conclusion would go up in value based on its truth strength... Do you disagree? Leave a comment.

2012-11-16T15:12:00.001-08:00

Don't Lose Your job because of an unwanted presidency. Practice #obamabstinence

2012-10-31T18:20:00.001-07:00

Teacher attacks teen wearing Romney T-shirt, compares it to KKK, student says

2012-10-04T14:21:00.001-07:00

High school sophomore Samantha Pawlucy says her teacher asked her why she was wearing the pink Romney-Ryan shirt in a 'democratic school,' then asked her to leave class or change. 'She said that's like her wearing a KKK shirt,' the teen said.

BY RHEANA MURRAY / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

NBC PHILADELPHIA

Samantha Pawlucy holds the shirt she wore when she says her teacher flipped out

A Philadelphia high school student says she was harassed for wearing a Mitt Romney T-shirt her teacher likened to the Klu Klux Klan.

"The teacher told me to get out of the classroom. I said no," 16-year-old Samantha Pawlucy told NBC Philadelphia.

VIDEO: TEACHER JOINS IN ON BULLYING

"She told me to take off my shirt and said that she has another one if I need one. And then the teacher asked me, 'Are your parents Republican?' I said, 'I don't know.'

"She said that's like her wearing a KKK shirt."

Pawlucy, a sophomore at Charles Carroll High School, said she was mortified last Friday when the teacher went into the hallway to urge other students and teachers to check out the shirt.

"I was really embarrassed and shocked," she told Philly.com. "I didn't think she'd go into the hallway and scream to everyone."

NBC PHILADELPHIA

Samantha Pawlucy says she didn't know what to do when her teacher attacked the shirt.

NBC PHILADELPHIA

The teacher has been moved to another class at Charles Carroll High School, the district says.

Pawlucy wore the pink Ryan-Romney shirt for the school's "dress-down" day.

The teacher wanted to know why Pawlucy was wearing a "Republican shirt" when "this is a democratic school," her father Richard Pawlucy told local radio station, WWIQ.

Pawlucy's parents met with the teacher, who apologized and explained she was only joking.

"If it was a joke between two adults, I can take a joke like that," Richard Pawlucy told NBC Philadelphia. "But [Samantha] didn't know how to take it, she doesn't understand. She actually thinks she did something wrong."

Pawlucy's mother Christine said she could "picture her sitting there feeling ashamed for just wearing a T-shirt."

The Philadelphia school district says the case is under investigation and the teacher, whose name has not been released, has been moved to another classroom.

Mr President, Your Two Minutes are up. I had 5 seconds before you interrupted me

2012-10-04T05:31:00.000-07:00

FreudianSlip

2012-10-03T21:52:00.001-07:00

Obama's #FreudianSlip: "Jim, I — you may want to move on to another
topic." MARTIN O'MALLEY's: "When President, uh, Governor Romney"

Romney's 47 came up in the debate

2012-10-03T21:32:00.001-07:00

But the president mentioned a couple of other ideas, and I'll just
note: first, education. I agree, education is key, particularly the
future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we got 47
of them housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different
agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We got to get those dollars back
to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own
pathways to getting the training they need for jobs that will really
help them.

Obama Math

2012-10-03T21:31:00.001-07:00

Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300

Gasoline prices have doubled under the president

Electric rates are up,

Food prices are up,

Health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family

What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs

2012-10-03T21:20:00.001-07:00

MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim. It's an honor to be here with you, and I appreciate the chance to be with the president. I am pleased to be at the University of Denver, appreciate their welcome and also the presidential commission on these debates.

And congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary. I'm sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine here — here with me, so I — (laughter) — congratulations.

This is obviously a very tender topic. I've had the occasion over the last couple of years of meeting people across the country. I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, I've been out of work since May. Can you help me?

Ann yesterday was a rally in Denver, and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He's lost his most recent job, and we've now just lost our home. Can you help us?

And the answer is yes, we can help, but it's going to take a different path: not the one we've been on, and not how the president describes my plan: as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich plan. That's not what I'm going to do.

Obama only has one note to play. Describe Romney as cutting taxes for the rich, and say that his plan is "from the bottom up". However he can't have a real adult conversation about jobs.

My plan has five basic parts.
One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about four million jobs.

Number two, open up more trade, particularly in Latin America; crack down on China if and when they cheat.

Number three, make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed and the best schools in the world. We're far away from that now.

Number four, get us to a balanced budget.
Number five, champion small business. It's small business that creates the jobs in America. And over the last four years small-business people have decided that America may not be the place to open a new business, because new business startups are down to a 30-year low. I know what it takes to get small business growing again, to hire people.

Now, I'm concerned that the path that we're on has just been unsuccessful. The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government would work. That's not the right answer for America. I'll restore the vitality that gets America working again.

Thank you.

Senator Graham: Obama Is Guilty of a ‘Mini-Coup’

2012-10-03T09:31:00.001-07:00

This week, sequestration made headlines again, as Lockheed Martin announced its intention to fall in line with the executive branch's astonishing request that defense contractors wilfully violate the WARN Act. Per its declaration, the firm will defer sending layoff notices made necessary by the sequestration law; and in return they will receive immunity from the consequences, along with a promise that any fines will be picked up by Uncle Sam. This morning, I spoke to Senator Lindsay Graham about the development.

Graham is deeply concerned about the move, and about the lack of attention it is receiving — within and without Congress. The manouvre is "incredibly disturbing," he told me. How disturbing? "It is exhibit A in the march toward an imperial presidency." The "statute is clear, Graham continued, "the WARN Act is the law of the land." Here, "we have a White House saying, 'we don't care what the law we signed says.'" The OMB analysis — which holds that as the law might change, there is no need for businesses to comply with it — is "absurd on its face," Linday told me, and the Department of Labor's advisory opinion "a political move." It is "patently illegal for the federal government to absorb the financial cost of a private company for not following the law. Never have we put the taxpayer on the hook for a private company failing to follow the law."

Graham wondered aloud, "why are Democrats are not upset about the precedent? This has implications beyond this election cycle." What implications, I queried? "Imagine if a Republican president said that, because his proposed tax cuts were likely to become law, there was no need for the existing rates to be paid." What we have here, I suggested, is the government instructing people to violate the law, and offering to mitigate the consequences. "Yes," Graham agreed. "It's crazy legal analysis. We are in danger of being no longer a rule of law nation. It's a mini-coup." I asked how this compared to June's unilateral imposition of the DREAM Act? "This takes the DREAM Act instinct to a new level," Lindsay told me. "That was a bastardization of the law — interpreting the law outside of its intent — but this is more dangerous as it ignores what the statute actually says."

So, what can be done? "Lockheed Martin will give into the administration and ignore the law at their peril," Graham warned. I asked what happens if the president attempts to reimburse them? "If he tries to go through Congress, well, that'll never happen." And if he tries to reallocate funds? "We would shut that down. The Constitution has a balance of powers for a reason. Congressional law cannot be unilaterally discarded by the executive branch." Indeed, congressional Republicans will perhaps have an easier time controlling the purse strings than they have in reversing the White House's course. In August, the Democratic senate voted down an effort led by Graham to force defense contractors to comply with the law, when the senate's Appropriations Committee rejected by 17-13 an amendment that would have overruled the Labor Department's advisory.

I inquired as to why the White House had made the request in the first place. President Obama undoubtedly agrees with WARN Act's purpose, Lindsay averred, "given that in 2007, he proposed extending the notification period from 60 days to 90 days, in order to 'protect employees.'" So why the change? "Because he wants to avoid hundreds of thousands of layoff notices being delivered on the Friday before election day."

"In my view," Lindsay affirmed, "the Democrats don't want to fix the sequestration crisis before the election. They want to use it as a bargaining chip against the Bush tax cuts. The White House hasn't lifted a finger to solve sequestration. I've done all I can, but this should be a time for presidential leadership. The commander-in-chief has a moral responsibility greater than the Congress to the armed forces. This is a failure of moral leadership."