Is Apple where really controversial old Obama administration employees go after they leave government?

Among the major Obama administration employees Apple hired were former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson in 2013.  Jackson, who tried to hide government communication by using an EPA pseudonym "Richard Windsor," had a very controversial record.  "Windsor" was granted at least six ethics and cyber-security certifications.  From the Washington Examiner:

Among the certificates awarded to "Richard Windsor" was a Nov. 2, 2009 "Certificate of Completion" for "E-mail Records Management." Jackson had only been appointed by President Obama as EPA's top executive a few months prior to the certification. . . . 

During the ensuing years, however, EPA IT department officials awarded additional certificates to "Richard Windsor," including three for completion of the agency's "Scholastica Decentia," the Certificate for Ethical Behavior, in 2010, 2011 and 2012. 

"Richard Windsor" was a top student of ethical behavior in 2010, compiling 100 percent scores for the "Risk" and "Cyber Threats" portions of the course, but a 50 percent score on the "EPA Information" portion dropped Windsor's total score to 83 percent. 

Jackson's use of the fake name became known in 2012 with Horner's book, The Liberal War Against Transparency, in which he made public a memo from EPA to the National Records Archives Administration describing the agency's creation of the "Richard Windsor" moniker. . . .  

Jackson resigned as EPA administrator in December 2012 shortly after her agency's inspector-general announced an investigation of the "Richard Windsor" scandal.

Now it looks like they are about to hire Former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

Carney would replace Katie Cotton, who stepped down from the position earlier this year. It has previously been reported that Apple is looking for an external candidate to lead its communications team in the hopes of finding someone “friendlier,” although several internal candidates were also being considered. . . . 

Carney is reportedly being considered for such roles at several companies, including Uber.

How Carney gets identified as a 'Friendlier" candidate isn't exactly obvious to me.  The other question is why anyone would trust what Carney had to say.

Apple fans are not happy about the possibility of a Carney appointment.

Obama administration rejects reasonable person standard in determining what represents sexual harassment.

The Obama administration apparently views an unwelcome request for a data as serious as rape? In a letter to the University of Montana, the Obama administration defined sexual harassment this way:

"an unwelcome request for a date . . . need not be 'objectively offensive' . . . regardless of the reasonableness of her feelings, and school administrators may be legally required to discipline her 'harasser.'"

Seriously?  From the WSJ:

The letter rejects the requirement, established by legal precedent and previous Education Department guidance, that sexual harassment must be "objectively offensive." By eliminating this "reasonable person" standard—which the Education Department has required since at least 2003, and which protects the accused against unreasonable or insincere allegations—the right not to be offended has been enshrined in a federal mandate. 

The letter further states that campuses have "an obligation to respond to student-on-student harassment" even when that harassment occurs off-campus. In some circumstances, the letter says, universities may take "disciplinary action against the harasser" even "prior to the completion of the Title IX and Title IV investigation/resolution." In plain English: Students can be punished before they are found guilty of harassment. . . .

Dems claim unprecedented obstruction of Obama's nominees by Republicans in Senate

Seriously?  I have a book coming out at the beginning of June that explains that this isn't true.  In the meantime I will simply mark the claim here.  From the NY Times:

There is no historical precedent for the number of cabinet-level nominees that Republicans have blocked or delayed in the Obama administration. Chuck Hagel became the first defense secretary nominee ever filibustered. John Brennan, the C.I.A. director, was the subject of an epic filibuster by Senator Rand Paul. Kathleen Sebelius and John Bryson, the secretaries of health and human services and commerce, were subjected to 60-vote confirmation margins instead of simple majorities. Susan Rice surely would have been filibustered and thus was not nominated to be secretary of state. . . .

Does Obama want to go over the Fiscal Cliff? Some Democrats sure think so

PAT CADDELL: . . . This president is on vacation.  I give you a plan that no one should vote for but here you go.
DOUG SCHOEN: Did you see what he said to Boehner last week? Which is I will go after you in the State of the Union and in the inaugural if you don't come along. Not, 'I have a plan that the American people want.' So, I really think he wants to go over the cliff.
CADDELL: . . . Boehner said, look I have given you $800 billion in taxes, don't I get anything for that, and the president said "no."  He said: "That's Free, that is mine."

From Debra Sanders at the SF Chronicle:

My fear is that some Democrats want to go off the cliff. Back in July, Tax Policy Center co-director William G. Gale wrote that if Congress doesn't act to prevent the "fiscal cliff," Washington wins an extra $2.8 trillion in tax revenue over a decade. It's a Democrat's happiest dream -- huge tax increases without having to vote for huge tax increases.
If America goes and stays off the cliff, Tax Foundation chief economist Will McBride told me, the hit on the gross domestic product would be 9.6 percent, and American wages would fall 7 percent.
To counter any negative effects of going over the cliff, Gale proposed more stimulus spending. . . .

David Plouffe on why Obama should veto the 2011 debt agreement between Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders: “We will not get credit for doing anything."

Bob Woodward on Obama's haphazard way of dealing with the debt limit talks and his concern to get credit for any budget agreement.  Congress was upset that Obama had defaulted on a deal at the last moment, and now Obama was upset that he would be left out of the deal.

. . . Boehner said he believed that he and the others — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — had a plan. He told Obama: We think we can work this out. Give us a little more time. We’ll come back to you. We are not going to negotiate this with you.
Obama objected, saying that he couldn’t be left out of the process. . . .
Reid, the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill, spoke up. The congressional leaders want to speak privately, he said. Give us some time. . . .

. . . Reid arrived in the Oval Office with his chief of staff, David Krone. . . .
It was highly unusual for someone to pass the ball so completely to a staffer. The 44-year-old Krone outlined the plan, including a secret Republican pledge to count $1 trillion in savings from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan toward deficit reduction. That was surprising. Earlier, Boehner had not been willing to accept this accounting gimmick.“I don’t trust these guys,” the president said dismissively. Krone either would not or could not conceal his anger. . . .
“Mr. President, I am sorry — with all due respect — that we are in this situation that we’re in, but we got handed this football on Friday night. And I didn’t create this situation. The first thing that baffles me is, from my private-sector experience, the first rule that I’ve always been taught is to have a Plan B. And it is really disheartening that you, that this White House did not have a Plan B.” Several jaws dropped as the Hill staffer blasted the president to his face. . . .
“You can’t veto,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the group. “You cannot be responsible for default.” Anything had to be done to prevent it. Anything to preserve the global economy.“If he caves,” said David Plouffe, Obama’s senior political adviser, “it will have long-lasting political repercussions that we may never get out of. If we draw a line in the sand on something this important and cross it, we may never be able to come back.”Accepting a two-step deal would not work, Plouffe said. “We will not get credit for doing anything. We’ll look like we got bullied by a bunch of very unpopular and irresponsible people.”Geithner had to deal with the possibility that the House bill could reach Obama’s desk. “My recommendation to the president would be, we’ve got to sign this. If that’s what they offer us, we sign it.” . . .

Is this a real bombshell for Obama to deal with?: "terrorist defender to head of Gitmo policy at Justice"

You really have to wonder how insensitive the Obama administration is to appearances. The media should go nuts over this if it were a Republican doing something remotely similar. From Fox News:

A former Justice Department attorney who blew the whistle on his department's policies is now questioning the promotion of a former defense attorney for an American terrorist to the No. 3 spot at the Justice Department -- specifically charged with crafting U.S. policy on Guantanamo detainees.
J. Christian Adams, once an elections lawyer who accused the Justice Department of racial bias in its decision to not prosecute a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party, said Tony West's promotion from assistant attorney general for the Civil Division to acting associate attorney general is one more step toward letting radicals run the Justice Department.
"The most dangerous thing is that West is overseeing Gitmo policy. It's not that he's just some guy at the Justice Department licking envelopes," Adams told Fox News on Sunday. . . .

This is a gift to the Republicans.

Obama administration regulates what service chaplains can say

The Obama administration regulates what Catholics are able to say at their religious services for military. From CNS news:

The message from the archbishop touched off a controversy both in and outside the military when the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains told the service's senior chaplains that Catholic priests serving as Army chaplains should be told not to read the archbishop's letter from the pulpit.

The Archdiocese for the Military Services has described that move as a violation of the archbishop's First Amendment rights as well as the First Amendment rights of the Catholic chaplains involved and their congregations.

The regulation the archbishop spoke about was finalized by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Jan. 20. It mandates that all health-care plans in the United States cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions. A “religious” employer exemption included in the regulation only applies to organizations that primarily focus on inculcating the tenets of the church in question, primarily employ members of the church, primarily serve members of the church, and is organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code used by actual parishes.

Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable institutions would not be exempt from the regulation, nor would Catholic individuals, business owners, or insurers. . . .

Peter Johnson, Jr. weighs in on whether White House violated Army chaplains' rights

"Obama the most polarizing president ever"

So much for running to unit the country. Now the press concludes that if Obama couldn't get rid of the gap it is probably impossible to erase. From the Washington Post:

President Obama ran — and won — in 2008 on the idea of uniting the country. But each of his first three years in office has marked historic highs in political polarization, with Democrats largely approving of him and Republicans deeply disapproving.

For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever. (The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings.)

In 2010, the partisan gap between how Obama was viewed by Democrats versus Republicans stood at 68 percent; in 2009, it was 65 percent. Both were the highest marks ever for a president’s second and first years in office, respectively.

What do those numbers tell us? Put simply: that the country is hardening along more and more strict partisan lines. . . .

Obama White House refuses to condemn Occupy Wall Street Rioters

From Fox News:

QUESTION: Occupy Wall Street protesters are making headlines again as you know over the weekend 400 protesters were arrested in Oakland and now today the national park services is expected to clear out protesters potentially as we speak from a site here in DC.

What is your reaction, is the administration concerned that some of these protesters are taking things too far?

CARNEY: Well, with regards to Oakland that’s obviously a local law enforcement matter. Here in Washington I would refer you for specifics to the U.S. National Park Services and U.S. Park Police and our position has been and continues to be that we need to balance first Amendment concerns, the right to demonstrate, the right to speak freely with public safety concerns and public health concerns and we understand that local law enforcement as well as National Park Service and U.S. Park Police are weighing these considerations when making these decisions and that’s appropriate.

Americans are already facing higher capital gains tax rates?: The question is actually how much higher are they going

Start with the fact that Obamacare will be imposing a 3.8 percentage point increase in capital gains taxes next year. Next comes the question of whether the Bush tax cuts will expire. If they do expire, the base capital gains tax rate goes up to 20%. In addition, there will be another 1.2 percentage points added for high income earners. Altogether, if the Bush tax cuts expire, the total capital gains tax will rise to 25%.

Will Obama be helping public colleges at the expense of private ones?

The key here is how the government defines colleges as being "too costly." Will it simply be tuition or the amount spent? Obviously public colleges cost much more than they charge. I also hate to think of how the federal government is going to determine quality. The article below also has a discussion about possible price controls. From Bloomberg Businessweek:

Saying “we just can’t keep on subsidizing skyrocketing tuition,” President Barack Obama proposed to have the government, for the first time, link federal aid to a college’s ability to control tuition costs and maintain education quality.

“We are putting colleges on notice -- you can’t assume that you’ll just jack up tuition every single year,” Obama said today at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “If you can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers every year will go down.”

For institutions that control costs, the administration is proposing to increase campus-based aid to about $10 billion a year, up from $1 billion. The bulk of the money, about $8 billion, would be devoted to Perkins loans for students, with other aid set aside for work-study grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants.

Obama said higher education today is “an economic imperative” instead of a luxury. “College is the single most important investment that you can make in your future,” he said.

The administration’s proposal calls for $1 billion to entice states to help keep costs down at public colleges while encouraging an overhaul of state programs that help finance education.

Obama is also proposing $55 million for individual colleges as an inducement to improve education quality. . . .

Apparently, the public colleges are pretty upset all on their own.

Fuzzy math, Illinois State University's president called it. "Political theater of the worst sort," said the University of Washington's head.
President Obama's new plan to force colleges and universities to contain tuition or face losing federal dollars is raising alarm among education leaders who worry about the threat of government overreach. Particularly sharp words came from the presidents of public universities; they're already frustrated by increasing state budget cuts.
The reality, said Illinois State's Al Bowman, is that simple changes cannot easily overcome deficits at many public schools. He said he was happy to hear Obama, in a speech Friday at the University of Michigan, urge state-level support of public universities. But, Bowman said, given the decreases in state aid, tying federal support to tuition prices is a product of fuzzy math.
Illinois has lowered public support for higher education by about one-third over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. Illinois State, with 21,000 students, has raised tuition almost 47 percent since 2007, from $6,150 a year for an in-state undergraduate student to $9,030.
"Most people, including the president, assume if universities were simply more efficient they would be able to operate with much smaller state subsidies, and I believe there are certainly efficiency gains that can be realized," Bowman said. "But they pale in comparison to the loss in state support." . . .

An amusing campaign ad about Obama's policies

Looking at the previous recessions can you spot the slowest recovery?

From the WSJ.
Remember Democrats coming to the defense of Obama's economic projections by saying that the worse the recession the stronger the recovery?

Also, only 28% of Americans think that the economy is getting better.

The Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures the economic confidence of consumers on a daily basis, rose slightly on Thursday to 79.2. Consumer confidence is down two points from a week ago and shows little change from a month ago, but is up 13 points from three months ago. Consumer confidence is down 10 points from a year ago. Over the course of 2011, the Rasmussen Consumer Index ranged from a low of 58.1 to a high of 93.3. So far in 2012, consumer confidence has ranged from a low of 78.7 and a high of 89.4. . . .

Bill Maher makes a prediction about Obama

This is one time that I think Bill Maher is at least partially right. On the gay marriage issue, Maher is undoubtedly correct. Obama is indeed probably an atheist (note what percentage of elitist liberals in academia are atheist, particularly if exclude Jewish people, 90+%), though I don't think that he will ever explicitly come out and say this. From Real Clear Politics:

"I'm just trying to get it real and keep it fair. And I think he will (Obama will come out in favor of gay marriage). I think in the second term, when he's got nothing to lose you're going to see the real Obama come out, including his admission that he's an atheist too."

Obama administration changing the definition of rape

There are a range of sexual assaults that go from misdemeanor to felonies. Changing the FBI's definition of what it counts as rape doesn't seem particularly productive. It doesn't change what is actually happening to determining whether someone will be prosecuted for a felony or a misdemeanor. All it changes is what the national numbers that are reported to the public by the FBI include. What matters to most people when they hear the annual reports is whether murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault have increased or decreased. Changing the definition of rape for these reports probably means that for a few years we really won't accurately know how the number of rapes are changing from year to year. From The Hill newspaper:

The Uniform Crime Report’s previous definition of rape, first adopted in 1929, was much narrower in scope and was limited only to forcible penile penetration of a vagina, according to the DOJ.

The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim,” according to the DOJ. . . .

Government Accountability Office claims that Obama administration broke federal law

From the Washington Examiner:

. . . the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that the Executive Office of the President violated federal law, but that’s the conclusion the GAO released in a report this month, after reviewing bilateral talks with the Chinese government hosted by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) disputes GAO’s analysis, arguing that the law does not constitutionally apply to the OSTP's diplomatic activities.

The disagreement stems from meetings this past May in which officials from the OSTP met with representatives of the Chinese government to discuss technology innovation and economic issues.

. . . the GAO "conclude[d] that OSTP’s use of appropriations to fund its participation in the Innovation Dialogue and the [economic issues] violated” a section of the Department of Defense appropriations bill that became law in April.

"The plain meaning of section 1340 is clear," wrote GAO general counsel Lynn Gibson, adding that OSTP "contravened the appropriations restriction." The GAO report provided the text of section 1340:

"None of the funds made available by this division may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this division."

"Come clean" Lawrence O'Donnell

Lawrence O'Donnell on his MSNBC show introduced Jon Gruber this way the other night.

Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC host: "Alright, come on. Come clean. You were in the room with President Obama discussing healthcare reform and you did in fact work with the Romney administration in Massachusetts. Come on Professor, you've got to tell us the truth."

Jonathan Gruber, MIT professor: "The truth is that the Affordable Care Act is essentially based on what we accomplished in Massachusetts. It's the same basic structure applied nationally. John McDonough, one of the other advisers,who work in both Massachusetts and advised the White House said 'it's the Massachusetts with three more zeros.' And that's basically a good description of what the federal bill did." . . .

Is it true that Gruber work with the Romney administration on Romney care? Well, Gruber helped advise both Romney and Democratic state legislators. Is it true that he met with Obama to discuss what happened in Massachusetts? Yes, but Gruber was a lot more involved than O'Donnell indicates and he was involved in such a way that might affect how accurately he portrays events. Namely, that Gruber was paid almost $400,000 by the Obama administration to help them push Obamacare. Even worse, Gruber has already been attacked for making public statements without making this deep involvement with the Obama administration clear. What is of greater concern now is that the Obama administration is targeting Romney and they may be using Gruber coming forward right now to achieve that goal.

Democrats might be using Gruber to try to weaken Romney's chances of getting the Republican nomination.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the leading academic defenders of health care reform, is taking heat for failing to disclose consistently that he was under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services while he was touting the Democrats' health proposals in the media.

Gruber, according to federal government documents, is under a $297,600 contract until next month to provide "technical assistance" in evaluating health care reform proposals. He was under a $95,000 HHS contract before that. . . .

Gruber claims that the money didn't influence his policy recommendations, but he misses the point. He should have revealed that he was getting $392,600 from the Obama administration and then let the viewers of the shows that he was on make the call. Here is what Kate Pickert wrote on a blog for Time Magazine:

Still, if I had known Gruber had such a contract, I would have disclosed this fact to readers when I quoted him. (For the record, I would have still quoted him and I was aware that he was one policy expert among many who advised Congress. Quoting him in an Oct. 13, 2009 story I identified him as "a respected MIT economist who has advised lawmakers on health reform.") But the attribution should have gone further. I'm of the belief that readers should have as much information about sources as possible within the confines of journalistic writing. . . .

A blog at the Washington Post has this:

I wasn't aware of that, and if I had been, I would've made sure it was disclosed when I quoted Gruber. On the other hand, the implication that Gruber is somehow a paid shill for this bill belies a fairly long and consistent record in support of health reform, and in particular, this type of health reform. . . .

What surprises me is how sympathetic these discussions are towards Gruber. I can't find any correction or note on this in the newspaper or main website for the Washington Post. Here is a critique of Gruber's piece. So how much of the media is mentioning the amount of money that Gruber received? A Google News Search at 2:30 AM the day after the story on Gruber broke got 10 hits searching on ""Jonathan Gruber" $296,600 OR $400,000 OR $392,600." Five of those ten were to the leftwing blog (FireDogLake).



Personally, I don't think that the $392,600 altered Gruber's views, though I would be willing to bet that Gruber supports campaign finance regulations because he claims that even much, much smaller amounts can corrupt politicians. However, the amount of money that he was given is also pretty amazing for an academic doing consulting for the government. A Google News Search on "Jonathan Gruber" for 2008 and 2009 found 240 hits, most very prominent places.

In defending himself, Gruber told Politico: “I have been completely consistent with my academic track record.” Did Gruber alter his position on health care regulations over time? Say since 2007? It appears that the answer is "yes." Merrill Goozner, a health care policy blogger and NYU professor, notes:

Hmmm. What about this March 2007 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which he co-authored. It looked at the effect of higher out-of-pocket co-pays for retired public employees in California. Gruber found that they led to higher hospitalization rates as old folks with chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease cut back on physician visits and necessary drugs.

These offset effects are concentrated in patients for whom medical care is presumably efficacious: those with a chronic disease. . . Our findings suggest that health insurance should be tied to underlying health status, with chronically ill patients facing lower cost-sharing.

What will happen after the excise tax hits high-cost insurance plans, according to Gruber today? 80 percent of employers will ratchet down plan benefits to keep their costs under the tax cap. The only way they can do that is by raising co-pays and deductibles and eliminating benefits. The extra money employers save will be returned to workers as higher wages, which they can choose to either use to pay for health care or pay other bills. And as his own research points out, many will choose to cut back on necessary care, and some will wind up in the hospital.

“There’s literally no evidence out there that people are going to suffer,” he told the Washington Post earlier this week. He should re-read his own paper.

Obama tried to apologize to the Japanese for Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Possibly even the Japanese realize that the bombings on net saved a lot of Japanese lives. From IBD:

Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. . . .

Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.

A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"

The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.

Whatever Tokyo's motive, Obama's motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started. . . . .

From the NY Post:

In a September 2009 cable prior to Obama’s official visit to Tokyo, our ambassador informs Washington that Tokyo had denied Obama’s bid to go to Hiroshima to publicly apologize for America’s dropping the atom bomb there -- in short, to turn the defeat of Japan into a matter of national humiliation for America.
The Japanese government told the ambassador this would be a “non-starter,” because the gesture would encourage domestic anti-nuclear groups and leftist groups opposed to Japan’s military cooperation with the United States. . . .
A president who is either ignorant or blind to the fact that if we hadn’t used the bomb and had been forced to invade Japan instead, at least 2 million Japanese would have died in a full-scale invasion of Japan, instead of the 300,000 killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- not to mention the 1 million US casualties that the War Department and Joint Chiefs of Staff calculated would come in that assault.
And a president who thinks that such groveling is the way to build good relations with an Asian ally -- when a far better way passed him right by. . . .

Boston Herald Editorial:

We shouldn’t be surprised that President Barack Obama wanted to visit the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to apologize for the atomic bombs dropped on them in World War II. Obama has been willing to “blame America first” for almost anything wrong with the world, but these visits would have marked a new low.

Fortunately, the Japanese government refused to permit such abasement. Obama had to be content on his 2009 world apology tour with lamenting (in his Cairo speech to Muslims of the Middle East) a “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims” (Which part of the Middle East was colonized by Americans again?) and with begging Iran, in a totally ineffective televised plea, to play nice. . . .

Is Obama acting constitutionally with his changes in the "No Child Left Behind" Act?

An interesting letter to the president from Senator Marco Rubio is available here.

Romney's back-and-forth on whether Obama has made the economy worse

The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, and the LA Times have all given Romney a hard time over is unwillingness to stick to his criticism that Obama made the economy worse. Romney is really making a hash of this for all the Republicans by first saying that Obama made things worse, backing away from that by saying things just haven't improved, then saying Obama made things worse, then backing away, and saying again that Obama has made things worse. He is discrediting the entire argument. He is also only mentioning the regulatory part of the argument, and even then he isn't completely explaining even that point.

In short form, the arguments are several fold:

1) Moving around a trillion dollars in the economy from where you and I and various companies would have spent it to where the Obama has wanted to spend it, has moved not only the money but the jobs that would be associated with that money. People don't instantly move from one set of jobs to another. All this massive churning of jobs has created a lot of chaos. One would also add in here about how the threats of Obama's regulatory policies and taxes have made it so what jobs have been created are overwhelmingly "temporary service sector jobs."

2) The massive new regulations have also created chaos and produced winners and losers. For example, Goldman Sachs liked the financial market regulations because it prevented banks from competing with them in certain operations. This type of change moves jobs around in the economy and also creates unemployment.

3) You could use this opportunity to explain why Obama's policies have depressed housing prices. Having the Obama administration put pressure on mortgage holders to write off parts of their loans makes them very reticent to make new loans. Why would any one want to make a new loan if six months or a year down the road you might have to write off a huge portion of the loan? Without new loans, there will be fewer people who want to buy new homes and that in turn will reduce home prices.

4) This one might be too politically sensitive to discuss, but there is also the issue of the incredibly long unemployment insurance of 95 to 99 weeks. On top of the unemployment insurance has been the government aid for mortgage payments and health insurance. One only gets these payments as long as one in unemployed, making it costly for some of the unemployed to return to work.