This is what happens when non-businessmen run the country.

Progressives, including President Obama, are fond of the Buffett Rule, which roughly states that wealthy people should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

Mitt Romney said Tuesday that he pays an effective federal tax rate of 15 percent.

White House Spokesman Jay Carney responded, "This only illuminates what (Obama) believes is an issue, which is that everybody who's working hard ought to pay their fair share. That includes millionaires who might be paying an effective tax rate of 15 percent when folks making $50,000 or $75,000 or $100,000 a year are paying much more."

That's true, many households making $75,000 pay more than a 15 percent tax rate. But this is misleading. Here's why.

Romney, and other people whose primary income comes from investments, pay that 15 percent rate. "Working" people can pay more than that on income from their wages.

There's a huge difference between money earned from investments and money earned from wages.

Risk.

Someone getting a salary or hourly wage is virtually guaranteed to see that money but an investor's investment can disappear overnight. If there isn't an incentive to risk that money, i.e. if he's taxed at the full rate if he's lucky enough to see a profit, he will make fewer investments.

That means fewer dollars going into struggling businesses, or expanding businesses, or startup businesses, and that's the last thing our economy needs.

But people in the Obama Administration, who have a strained relationship with the private sector, either don't understand that or understand it and are placing politics ahead of the economy. Either way, they do damage to the country.

"I'm Mitt Romney, and I approved this message."

With that routine statement at the end of the Romney Campaign's first ad against President Obama, the candidate put his seal of approval on what was revealed to be a deceitful attempt to twist the words of his Democratic opponent.

What makes the incident more frustrating for conservatives is that Romney didn't have to diminish himself by taking the president out of context--Obama himself has provided a treasure trove of statements that would make great political ads. Why does his campaign need to make stuff up?

Romney's ad quotes Obama as saying, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." While Obama said those words, right before it he said, "Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote..."

So Obama was quoting McCain. The Romney ad leaves the viewer with the false impression that Obama said he'll lose in 2012 if he talks about the economy.

ABC's Jake Tapper tweeted that the ad isn't just misleading. "It's TV-station-refuse-to-air-it-misleading."

Chances are Romney himself is not splicing together video in a dishonest way. But his stamp is on it, and so he deserves criticism. Mitt, this is the type of stuff conservatives expect from Jon Stewart and Media Matters. This is beneath your campaign.

Mitt Romney's campaign was ecstatic to hear Rick Perry double-down on his criticism of Social Security at Wednesday's GOP debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley.

"You cannot keep the status quo in place and call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme," Perry said at a Republican debate in California. Acknowledging that several have called his remarks controversial, he added, "Maybe it's time to have some provocative language in this country."

Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme in his "Fed Up!" book, and his enemies in the Bush camp have zeroed in on the language.

Most recently, Republican strategist Karl Rove said Perry's take on Social Security will prove "toxic" in the 2012 election. Former Vice President Dick Cheney also said recently it was inaccurate to call the program a Ponzi scheme.

In Simi Valley, Perry said that Chenye's characterization was "just a lie," and Rove was "over the top." Romney seized the moment.

"Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security but to saving Social Security," Romney said.

What are the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme, and who is telling the truth?

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, a Poniz scheme "is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors."

Score one for Perry.

Basically, early investors are lured by guaranteed returns that are paid mainly through money derived from new investors, not from actual profit. Typically the scheme promises huge profits in a short amount of time, then collapses when money from new investors isn't sufficient to keep the scheme going.

Social Security shares the same basic characteristics as a Ponzi scheme--it requires more and more new workers to pay for the ever-increasing number of retirees.  As the Baby Boomer generation retires, the number of workers that have to contribute to Social Security to pay for them is proving to be insufficient. Economist Arnold Kling said the following:

The government gives people money, which it expects to obtain by taking the money from people in the future. Even the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, not known as a right-wing organization, sees the U.S. fiscal stance as unsustainable (pointer from Ezra Klein via Tyler Cowen)--in other words, a Ponzi scheme.

Business Week agreed about the fundamental parallels between Social Security and the Ponzi scheme:

Social Security taxes current workers to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees. In other words, the new entrants into the Social Security system, the young workers, pay off the previous entrants, the older workers. And despite the fact you have a Social Security "account", there is no necessary link between what you paid into the system in taxes, and what you receive.

That's very similar to the structure of a Ponzi scheme, where new investors pay off the original investors. As long as enough new 'victims' are brought into the scheme, it keeps growing and growing. But when the new investors runs out, the Ponzi collapses. Analogously, the slowdown in population growth puts pressure on Social Security finances.

Business Week also noted that there is one thing that can keep Social Security from being a Ponzi scheme--technological innovation that leads to increased worker productivity.

If we leave the younger generation a good legacy--a sound scientific and technological base, combined with an innovative and flexible economy and an educated workforce--then Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The economy grows, and there's more than enough resources for everyone.

But if instead we--the current generation--invest in homes, flat-screen televisions and SUVs, then we don't leave the next generation with the technological "seed corn" they need. If the technological progress slows, then Social Security does turn out to be Ponzi-like--with unfortunate consequences for everyone.

Guess which path we're headed down. Give another point to Rick Perry.

From the Progressive side of the spectrum, the arguments against Social Security being a Ponzi scheme get laughable. Mother Jones writes that because Social Security is not deliberately fraudulent, it is not fraud. Also, governments can print money and raise taxes to keep the scheme from collapsing, and it's been around for a long time, unlike typical Ponzi schemes.

But none of that changes the fact that it requires an ever-increasing number of new victims to keep it afloat. Even if the government devalues the dollar to meet debt obligations such as Social Security (which it is doing), a large portion of the investors get screwed in the end by being paid in worthless currency.

In the final analysis, Rick Perry is right. Social Security is fundamentally the same as a Ponzi scheme. While it shares some superficial differences from being run by the government, those differences don't change the nature of what it is.

Earlier this morning, I read in the Star that Rick Perry was undecided if he was going to attend Wednesday's debate in Simi Valley at the Reagan Library due to the historic wildfires in his home state of Texas.

Also this morning, the Ventura County Republican Party announced that Rick Perry would appear at a meet-and-greet at the Camarillo airport immediately following the debate.

Is he going to come to Ventura County or isn't he?

The debate at the Reagan Library would be the first of Perry's presidential candidacy, were he to attend, and the national stage it will be on is very import for his campaign. However, as governor of a state that is experiencing the worst wildfire in its history, Perry does not want to be accused of putting his political ambitions over the welfare of Texans.

On the Early Show Tuesday morning, Perry said his focus was on the fires, but he called the situation "fluid."

However, as of noon, a Perry spokesman said he'll attend the debate after all.

Mark Miner, Perry's spokesman, said in a one-line email to USA Today's Jackie Kucinich Tuesday, that Perry plans to attend the GOP presidential debate. Previously, the Texas governor had said he wasn't sure if he would attend or not because of the raging wildfires plaguing Texas amid a prolonged drought.

 Politically speaking, Perry will attempt to appear in control of the wildfire situation while briefly visiting California. Realistically, there's not much he can't do from here that he could do in Texas--it's not like he's going to be personally hosing down any fires no matter what state he's in. In-state rivals will use the opportunity to ding him a bit, but the payoff of a good performance in the national spotlight at the Simi Valley debate far exceeds any damage he'll incur by being absent.

That means that he'll presumably attend the county GOP meet-and-greet in Camarillo, which is interesting because that's in Romney territory.  Romney campaigned for Tony Strickland in his State Senate campaign and endorsed him in last year's unsuccessful bid to become the state controller. Because Perry is in town doesn't mean that the county party is going to be endorsing him--the official email that went out carried a post-script that the meet-and-greet was not to be construed as an endorsement of any candidate.