Tax Day

Wouldn't it be nice if today were like any other day instead of the heavy reminder of the burden our government has become? The U.S. government is so bloated right now, it's too much to carry. That's why the Tea Party movement is mushrooming. I've never been to a Tea Party, but I sympathize. I read in the news about the Tea Parties being called "anti-government" protesters. There may be some anarchists on the fringe of the movement, but I think a far more accurate description of the Tea Party is "anti-BIG-government" - the kind that controls the people instead of the people controlling their government. The President and Congress are totally out of control and irresponsible right now. They have no regard for the Constitution, the wishes of the American people, and seemingly no great concern for America's standing in the world except that we become subservient. They've already spent our taxes (and our kids and grand kids taxes) and are now making the money we have left less valuable by printing what they want to spend. If any private business ran their affairs like our government is running, it would be out of business and its CEO would probably be in prison. Our President is not too big to fail. He doesn't deserve to be bailed out by the American people. His agenda needs to fail or our country will. I am a tax-paying, U.S. citizen. This country belongs to the people, not the liberal elites who think they are above the law and know better than the Constitution.

Half and half

President Obama says he's willing to meet the GOP half-way on his "health care reform" bill. I say if he's willing to throw out half of it, it's fair that the GOP throw out the other half.

Post Election

Interesting political scene...

Have Mercy

May the Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on my country even though we do not deserve it. America has turned her back on God and we are reaping the consequences. Can a country embrace gross immorality and mass murder through abortion and yet ask for and expect God to bless America? 

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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."