"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strongenough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Election Pending

Election Day is approaching. Quickly. Normally this is an event that I anticipate and look forward to seeing the outcome of. This year, as is probably noticeable by the scarcity of articles published here, I am not very interested. No matter who is elected, I will not be rejoicing. The kind of change we will get from either candidate as President will most likely not be for the better of the country. It will just be a different rate of decline. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as a vice presidential running mate did not strengthen his position of favor in my book - neither did it detract. It, in essence, did nothing to change or sway my opinions about him. What I wrote earlier concerning his candidacy still holds true, and while I shudder to think of 4-8 years of an Obama presidency, a McCain presidency holds no charms either.

We've had eight years of a republican president and where has it gotten us? Not to a great spot as anybody who pays even the littlest bit of attention knows. The democrats already have Congress. Let them have the White House for four years and they can take full blame for everything. Maybe the republicans will then finally awake to the fact that there are enough liberals in the democrat party and for a republican to win, they need to nominate a real conservative with a vision to make a difference instead of a left-leaning, compromising republican who they think will appeal to "moderates" and "independents."

A piece of advice

Live within your means. Don't spend more than you make, and save something, even if it’s just one percent of your income or a few dollars a week. Saving is good for you and it’s good for the economy.

Presidential Politics

Now that the primary season is over and we know who the nominees for president from each party will be, the candidates are at each other's throats. I don't mind a good debate, I like challenging debate; it makes people think, but what bothers me is WHAT they are debating. Most of what Senators Obama and McCain talk about should not be a president's concern. The Constitution clearly states the duties and powers of the president in Article II, which you can read here. It is sad how far the United States has come from the original intent of the founding fathers. Does anybody read the Constitution any more? And if they do read it, why do they not heed its contents?

Mike's New Job

Mike Huckabee has a new job. You've probably already heard about it. He's working as a political analyst for the Fox News Channel.

Memorial Day Tribute

This Memorial Day weekend, it would be nice if we could get away from the partisan, bickering, politics that are front page news every day in the United States, and celebrate America and honor those who have sacrificed their lives and served in the U.S. military; in the Marine Corps, in the Navy, in the Army, in the Air Force, in the National Guard and in the Coast Guard. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, we salute you. Thank you for all you do to keep us free.

IRS: Economic Stimulus Payment

Today I received a notice from the IRS about the Economic Stimulus Payment I'll be receiving since I'm a taxpayer. Now let me tell you why this didn't make me jump for joy.
1. Why did they send out a notice before the checks were cut? It's wasteful to do a double mailing, and contrary to what some think, this isn't "government" money they're wasting. It's YOURS and MINE. We paid the taxes in the first place so the government could waste a good portion of it on senseless mailings such as this one.
2. While I'll never turn down a tax rebate, the whole idea is rather repulsive. What the government is really doing is playing socialist and redistributing wealth. I don't think the government should have the power to do that. It's contradictory to the principles of a free society and free market system. I'm not against helping people in need, in fact, I'm for it, but it's not in the federal government's job description to play Robin Hood. The private sector could do a much better job at helping those in need. The entire tax structure in this country needs to be overhauled. Tweaking it with tax hikes and tax cuts is not enough.
3. This "stimulus payment" is supposed to help dig the economy out of a recession, but again, the IRS and government bureaucrats (and unfortunately elected officials, too) don't understand a basic concept in economics. Most people won't run out and spend this "payment" on goods and services - at least not all of it, which is what would be necessary to "stimulate" the economy. In order for people to change their consumption habits, a permanent change in income is necessary. A one-time payment such as this will most likely be used to pay off some debt, or be put into savings.
4. What's especially irritating is that the supposed "rich" people ($75,000 AGI) will get a "reduced" payment or the payment might even be "phased out completely." Now, if that's not unjust, I don't know what is. It's the people in the higher tax bracket who PAID the higher taxes in the first place, and now, when it's time for a "stimulus payment" they get left out? Folks, this is blatantly socialistic.
5. If we're going to redistribute wealth, why bother paying taxes in the first place? Why not just have all of our wages and salaries sent directly to the government and we can all live on a check from the government each month so that everybody gets an equal share? If that were the case, in a very short time, our economy would collapse because there would be no incentive to produce. We're all going to get an equal check no matter if we work hard or sit at home and watch television. Incentive is all about a return. If the end result is the same, why work a lot when you can work a little, or not at all?
So, as you can see, I’m not at all thrilled. The “generosity” of the government in returning some of what I paid them fails to captivate my gratitude. There are better ways to stimulate the economy.

Reforming the Primary Season

I think the primary system needs reforming. Look at the lack of excellence in any candidate now selected. Obama and Hillary are still battling it out for the democrat nomination, but if those two are the best the democrats can do they don't have much going for them except a nice smile and smooth phraseology in Obama and ...hmmm... I'm not sure what they have going for them in Hillary. And if McCain is the best republicans can do, they're in deep trouble, too. McCain has no new ideas, he is (excuse the use of the word) *BORING* and a leaning liberal lefty dressed up in republican labels. I have no use for him. I can see how Hillary and Obama are the best the democrats have to offer, after all we can't expect the democrats to produce excellence, but shame on the republicans for not choosing more wisely. Here's my proposition to reform the primary season so that the candidates more accurately represent the party. Right now, momentum is the key word in the primary season. It starts out slowly in Iowa and then on to New Hampshire and a few other states before a massive Super Tuesday, followed by more isolated primaries. There are several ways to reform the system. One is to hold all primaries nation wide on the same day for democrats and republicans, which cuts out the momentum factor and gives a much better chance of having a brokered convention. Of course, under this system, the brokered convention could become a place of bribery and all sorts of shenanigans and chicanery. The second option for reform involves momentum. I'll use the republican race this year for illustration. John McCain is now the republican nominee. How did he do it? He got his huge delegate lead from *blue* states. These states are not going to vote republican, and yet they have a huge influence on who the republican nominee is because of their gigantic delegate allotments and because many of them are winner takes all states, which makes the delegate count go up even faster, and they have their primaries early in the season. That's how McCain did it. From my perspective, it's not right to allow blue states to dictate who the red states are going to vote for in November, so here's my plan to solve that problem. Primaries for the republicans should be held first in red states and then after all red state primaries, blue states could hold primaries. The momentum would then be a red state momentum. A primary season according to this system would yield a candidate more representative of those who will actually be voting for the candidate in November.

Campaign Finance Reform

Another interesting article about McCAIN. He likes to make the rules, but when it comes to following them, he doesn't like it so much.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12803

Here's my solution to Campaign Finance Reform:
1. no candidate or campaign may borrow money
2. only individuals, no PACs or groups of any kind may contribute
3. all contributions must be disclosed within 48 hours
4. only individuals eligible to vote in the election may contribute
5. no individual may contribute more than $10,000 per election cycle to one candidate
6. a candidate may not contribute more to his/her campaign than $10,000
7. eliminate the federal matching funds program

This would eliminate the power of special interest groups, foreign funding, and the personal money-tied influence of people like George Soros, and force candidates to raise money from their supporters. It would also keep rich candidates from attempting to buy the election.

Wisconsin and Washington

We have results from Wisconsin and Washington. John Sydney McCain III and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. are the "choices" we will be handed come November. But... there's still time to make a difference! Although it is little acknowledged anymore, there are still other people running for the presidential nominations of the republican and democrat parties. On the republican side, Dr. Ron Paul, a congressman from TX, a strict constitutionalist (that's a good thing, by the way, to be a strict constitutionalist) and Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who, although he is not as much of a strict constitutionalist as Dr. Paul is, has some good qualities. Mr. Huckabee wants to put the IRS out of business and instead use the Fair Tax (a national sales tax) to collect revenue. Oh, and on the democrat side, Mike Gravel is also still running. He's also for eliminating the IRS and instead using the Fair Tax, but that's the only thing I could find on his issue positions that I agreed with. And then of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton is still in the race, and could still easily get the democrat nomination. But does anyone really want to listen to her strident voice screaming at us for four years?

McCain funded by George Soros

Why isn't somebody screaming bloody murder over this? It is really outrageous that this is allowed. This has been going on since 2001 and it needs to stop!! Read the article by clicking here. Why are we letting the democrats pick the republican nominee through funding? McCain is not a free man. He's sold himself to the liberals and George Soros has bought him.

Even before September

I weep for my country even before the primary season is over at the "choices" we will be given in November. What choice? U.S. Senator extreme liberal v. U.S. Senator liberal? That’s not much of a choice. Right now, the U.S. Congress (that’s the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives combined) has a lower approval rating and a higher disapproval rating than President George W. Bush has (and that’s saying something considering how many people disapprove of the president) and we are going to pick a new president to lead the charge in changing Washington from that pool? No matter which U.S. Senator America chooses, I think buyers remorse will be inevitable.

Coffee Table Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for coffee and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the coffee shop every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily coffee by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his coffee. So, the shop owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (15% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next day the tenth man didn't show up for coffee, so the nine sat down and had coffee without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

This illustration is not my own. I do not know the original source.

Romney out

Whoa! Another interesting twist in an interesting primary/caucus season; Romney withdrew! The field is narrowing down dramatically. Left still in the race are Huckabee, McCAIN and Paul, three very different men with varying points of view on every issue of debate. One has to ask the question: are these three in it for the remainder of the race to the convention?

Super Tuesday?

I'm sure you all know the results of Super Tuesday. McCAIN proclaims himself the front-runner, Romney supporters accuse Huckabee of stealing votes that rightfully belong to Romney, and Huckabee, Romney, McCAIN and Paul all vow to stay in the race. There are still more states in which delegates will be chosen and there is already talk of a McCAIN/Huckabee ticket. I think such a ticket would be a boom for McCAIN and a bust for Huck if he really wants to be president someday. A vice president needs to support the president, and if a McCAIN/Huckabee ticket were, hypothetically speaking, elected in November, Huck would have to compromise for 4, maybe 8 years, because McCAIN has some pretty liberal ideas and he likes to buddy up with the democrats on some of their pet issues, after which, Huckabee would have lost his conservative appeal. He could say "bye-bye" to his current base of support.

A Quote

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart MillEnglish economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Ron Paul

I receive emails from several campaigns in order to get the inside scoop on campaign strategy first-hand, and among the ones I signed up for is Ron Paul. One thing I have to say about Ron Paul's supporters: they put their money where their mouth is. They don't just render lip service, they actually open their wallets. He can raise millions in a single day.

Thompson and Paul

I think Fred Thompson needs to drop out. Although I personally have nothing against him especially, I think he is splitting the more conservative section of republican voters. His supporters, roughly 9 percent of those being polled, could choose another candidate. Now, 9 percent normally doesn't sound like much, but in this close race, it matters. Nine percent could change the leader in the race if they all chose the same candidate, but they probably would split their votes among several of the other leaders.

Why am I not saying the same thing about Ron Paul who is drawing about 4 percent in the polls? Yes, 4 percent could also make a difference in this nomination, but in his case, I think it's different. You see, Ron Paul doesn't change the results for any other candidate because his supporters, from what I know of them, (and I know a few) don't have a "second" choice candidate in the republican primary. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, they walk away from the republican party and either don't vote in the presidential election or they vote third party; most likely the constitution party.

McCAIN

Finally, somebody said it!! There are worse things than Republicans losing the White House in November.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/who_will_stop_mccain.html

Nevada Caucus

Nevada Caucus results make this nomination even more exciting. Romney and Clinton pulled out victories, but Nevada did not have the hype attached to it that South Carolina had. Why? For the republicans, Nevada had more delegates to win than South Carolina, and with the process looking more and more like a lead-up to a brokered convention, every delegate counts.

South Carolina Primary

South Carolina is an interesting state. In recent history, South Carolina has been a good predictor of republican nominees, but this year seems to be breaking all stereotypes; nothing is going according to a predictable plan. McCain won, but not hugely, and according to the talking heads, the race is still wide open. I can only hope that it is.

Disappointments are real

As much as I get interested in and excited about politics, I try to approach it from a realist perspective. Candidates for public office are also humans and no human being is perfect. Sometimes we set our expectations on a candidate that they are going to fulfill everything we dream of in a public servant, but this attitude toward any candidate will doom us to disappointment. Nobody can fulfill everyone's expectations. In the few cases where somebody I voted for got elected, I can only recall one in whom I wasn't disappointed. This post may seem contradictory to one I wrote earlier about the electability of a candidate, but that's not what I'm referring to in this post. Realizing the limitations of any one candidate, but choosing the one with the best ideas and track-record is important. While I have narrowed the presidential field down to several possibilities I could vote for, I have not yet jumped whole-heartedly on any band-wagon, and there are several candidates for whom I will not vote on principle.

Politics and Sports

I follow politics like some people follow sports. But the stakes are higher in politics than in sports. Who wins the Super Bowl in 2008 does not affect America's policies at home and abroad, but who wins the election does. Yes, it matters to me who wins and loses.

Michigan Primary

This makes things more interesting: Michigan picks Romney. And, for the most part, the democrats did not interfere with the republican primary. Maybe there was too much snow and it was too cold.

Menu Make-over

What will they do next?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html

You can vote, too

It doesn't matter if you are eligible to vote in the U.S. Presidential election; you can still vote in my polls.

Michigan

Today Michigan will vote for a presidential candidate in the primary election. The democrat's primary there isn't very exciting given that Senator Hillary is running un-opposed. The danger for republicans, therefore, is that democrats will vote in the republican primary, skewing the results in favor of a more liberal candidate. We'll have to wait and see who comes out on top. The democrats love Senator McCain, the republican establishment leaders love Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani and they despise Gov. Huckabee. The republican establishment is out of touch with the republican base. David Brooks, in a Jan. 1, 2008 New York Times OpEd, wrote, "The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins."

Too Unusual?

Over the years that I've followed and been involved in politics I have supported more losers than winners. I sometimes even support losers to other losers. I think it's because I'm so conservative. These days I do not even readily identify myself as a Republican, because I am first a conservative. I have heard, and seen time and again that "electability" is the most important "quality" in a candidate. And I've sometimes even fallen for it, but the last few years have really made me look twice about supporting a candidate just because he or she can win and has the "right"party label. I'm tired of winners that compromise because they are worried about getting re-elected. I am approaching this election from a different view point, and I've been following this presidential race since the last one. I am no longer willing to support a candidate just because they win my party's nomination. I will not be forced into voting for a RINO (Republican In Name Only) just for the sake of defeating a Democrat, under the guise of choosing "the lesser of two evils." Having Republicans in Washington means nothing if they are not also conservatives. Real ones. It is better to have a liberal Democrat in the White House than a liberal Republican. My theory is that a Democrat in the White House forces the Republicans in the Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) to become more conservative. They may not do it because they are conservative so much as on the principle of simple opposition to the other party. But a liberal Republican is harder to stop because some Republicans in Congress will support anything labeled "Republican" for the sake of appearing unified with their party. This election, candidates from both major parties are emphasizing the word "change." I agree, it is time for change, but whose?

New Hampshire Primary

Well, well, well. New Hampshire has spoken. The democrats want Hillary and the republicans want McCain. So, let the race continue. Let me just say that I don't think either of these candidates is an unusual statesman.

The Iowa Caucus

Iowans have spoken. In Iowa, the Democrats want Barack Obama and the Republicans want Mike Huckabee. But that's just Iowa. What will the rest of the United States say?