Well now that the promo’s are out I can talk about it 🙂 I am coordinating guests and coverage of CNBCs live Town Hall with the President on Monday. Its from noon – 1pm ET.


Hi all 🙂

Well now that the promo’s are out I can talk about it 🙂 I am coordinating guests and coverage of CNBCs live Town Hall with the President on Monday. Its from noon – 1pm ET.

I’m excited to see this transpire. CNBC is picking the audience. Yes– you read that right! I have been talking to many CEOS as you can imagine and I have had some like Mike Jackson and Wayne Huizenga flying not only to come on the network, but to ask the President a question. Former Federal Reserve Governor and close contact Mark Olson will also be in the audience and on CNBC. What’s the number one thing my contacts want to talk about? Unemployment! Also running a close second tax cuts, followed by health care reform and financial reform and the uncertainties the expansion of government and these policies have created.

Let me know what questions you want to ask President Obama! Tell your friends to come on over and post a question too!

Author: loriannlarocco

I am the author of "Dynasties of the Sea: The Untold Stories of teh Postwar Shipping Pioneers", "Opportunity Knocking: Lessons from Business Leaders", "Thriving in the New Economy" and "Dynasties of the Sea: The Shipowners and Financiers Who Expanded the Era of Free Trade". I'm also the Senior Talent Producer at CNBC, and known as the producer with the trillion dollar Rolodex


  1. Hi Lori Ann Larocco. I have a suggestion on tax policy and would like to know what Pres. Obama’s view on it is.

    My suggestion is that there be an import VAT – wherein all imports and products derived from imports be subject to a VAT. This will incentivize domestic production and help reduce deficits.
    ( Commodities will have to be exempt from the import VAT )

    The import VAT will have to be coupled with the Bush Tax Cuts, a cut in the corporate taxes and a hike in sales tax.

    My reasoning behind a cut in production taxes ( Bush tax cuts and corporate taxes ) and a corresponding hike in sales tax is that an economy which taxes production too high, produces less. If instead an economy taxes consumption ( i.e. sales tax ) consumption patterns will not be affected significantly and the overall effect will be to stimulate the economy.

    I would like to know the President’s view on this and if he would consider such a change in his tax policy.


      1. On second thoughts, the whole tax plan together would work quite well and I would like you to ask the question to the President at the Town Hall.


  2. Hi Lori Ann Larocco. I would also like to know whether President Obama is willing to consider a privatization of social security to meet the challenge growing entitlements pose.


      1. Although I am thinking using the social security fund money to finance low cost solar for home mortgages owned by Fannie and Freddie might be a good idea which should be suggested to Pres. Obama.

        The low cost solar will be used to setup a distributed power generation model and could have assured returns based on the power demand.


      2. On second thoughts, privatization of social security would be a good idea and you should ask this question at the Town Hall.


      3. On second thoughts, funding low cost solar with the social security fund money could give close to guaranteed returns and could be considered to meet the challenge of growing entitlements.

        Sorry about all the flip-flopping.


  3. Hi Lori Ann Larocco. In my previous tax proposals, the cut in corporate taxes and hike in sales tax would have to be done in a deficit neutral way. The VAT would then help reduce deficits.

    I was thinking of a 10% corporate tax cut.


      1. This should go with my previous question on tax policy and it would be a good idea to post it to the President at the Town Hall.


  4. Lori – Appreciate the opportunity.
    Lets try this … .

    If American businessmen perceived markets here in the US into which they could expand and make a profit, they would do so and we would have new jobs.

    There are no new markets because products Americans want or need can be provided by lower-cost imports because we have allowed foreign nations to unfairly peg their currency to their advantage.

    With no new markets where American businessmen can enter and earn a profit, tax incentive are ineffective.

    Mr President: What’s your take of an “America First” policy where we require companies to “build it here to sell it here” and counter the unfair currency under-pegging by insisting on realistic pegging and enforcing it with a “flat across the board tariff” if they refuse. The tariffs would be an additional source of Federal revenue.

    When American consumers buy American-built products, the $dollars remain in the US and are recycled into more business investment, wages, and an improving economy. When we buy cheap imports, the $dollars leave the country and build industry elsewhere.

    America is a big enough market that with an America-First policy we could be self-sufficient with an expanding economy for a generation and help fund our retirement and social cost obligations.

    Further, these new jobs in an expanding economy would be available for military personnel returning as we close-out Afghanistan.

    Without credible markets where American manufacturers can make a profit, businessmen will not expand and hire. Tax incentives are useless without profits.

    Mr President, what’s your thinking about moving to an America First economic policy?

    Counters to arguments:
    [Tariffs aren’t inherently combative unless applied unevenly to protect specific industries. A “Flat tariff” would go across the spectrum of all goods priced in that foreign currency with the obvious intent to bring even-handedness. The Foreign Country would outwardly disagree, but would understand no malice just self defense of American jobs and the economy].

    [Companies that have off-shored American jobs would have the choice to either return jobs to the US to sell products in the US, or, move their headquarters off-shore [think Haliburton and Dubai] and and attempt to sell products to US markets in a fairly-repegged foreign currency].

    [Should Foreign Countries elect to sell our T-bonds, the Fed can buy back the bonds. This additional money supply is not inflationary because the Countries receiving it will elect to spend it elsewhere and not drive up US prices].

    [Acting forcefully in the fiat currency markets via tariffs, if the Foreign Countries refuse to re-peg, is the only tool left where currency can be created by fiat].

    [Acting forcefully in the currency markets in an America First policy would demonstrate the Administration’s commitment to the welfare of the American People].

    Thanks again for the consideration.
    ~ Regards


  5. Ask the President this: why play “small ball” on tax reform Mr. President? Arguing over rates is piddly, and does not get the rich to pay much more, because the rich avoid taxes through deferral of income and death, and avoid estate taxes through clever insurance and trust arrangements.

    Why not cut through the Gordian Knot, and tax all people like traders? Tax on the increase in estimated net worth, which is an estimate of true income. You could tax everyone at a much lower rate, and bring in taxes at a far higher rate, especially in the first few years, when all of the long-term capital gains get taxed. (A solution to your budget problems on the backs of the clever rich.)

    For illiquid assets, the government would impute income at the rate of the 30-year Treasury yield plus 2%, and allow them to true up when they actually sell the asset.

    My proposal is more detailed than this, but what do you think, Mr. President?


  6. Our liabilities for entitlements plus explicit debt are 4-5 times GDP. When I talked with a staffer at the Treasury Department after the first blogger meeting, he said, “That’s problem for the next administration.”

    How are you going to address entitlement reform, particularly Medicare, lest it bankrupt us?


  7. Lori – lets have a little fun with the President … .

    Mr President,
    As a method of reducing Federal spending. what’s your take on sending the big social programs back to the States along with the payroll tax revenue streams. Let the States make the tough decisions how to care for their Citizens in the future using the existing revenue streams from within their own States.

    Healthcare: Massachusetts has a State program, other States could too.
    Medicare: The States could determine how to care for their Citizens using the existing payroll tax revenue, and, make the tough decisions how to pay for future care. Maybe with a State medical program they could implement a “Medicare-like” program for their seniors.
    Social Security: Even this hot topic could be returned to the States with the revenue from their own payroll taxes. So far there’s enough money to pay benefits. Let the separate States decide how to fund future benefits for their Citizens.

    This approach would gracefully solve the large unfunded obligation concerns of the Federal Government.

    Boy, I’d love to be the fly on the wall should this question be asked … . 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s