.... and so is the ModCon - just in time for the MA senatorial election. The next person to hold one of the two senatorial seats in Massachuetts will be decided within the hour, bickering not withstanding. While the DNC may be hoping against hope, much of the country is deciding that hope and change lie in different direction than envisioned by the administration. Should Scott Brown (the Republican candidate) win, much of the focus from the left will be on who to blame, while many on the right will focus on resurgence (even with a Brown loss).
But I think that we on the right need to focus on something else entirely. It's quite clear that, while turnout will be important in determining the outcome of the race, it is the turnout among independents that will be the most important. Lost in all the coverage is the blunt fact that the majority of voters in MA, while leaning left, are actually registered Independent. Independents are the ones who have really pushed the Brown campaign forward, and their ire has been raised against Republicans and Democrats alike. Independents were also largely responsible for Obama's win last year, and their dramatic shift away from he, and the Congressional leadership, can not necessarily be attributed to a sympathy with all things Republican. Republicans would do well to take as much of a lesson from the outcome of this election, whatever it may be, as Dems - failure to support economic revival and to protect the country will not be tolerated from anyone, regardless of party.
More will be posted as election results come in.
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
19 January 2010
04 September 2009
Perhaps the Vice-President Needs a Personal Fact-Checker
(or at least someone to stop him from rambling on and on).
Vice-President Biden's robust defense of the stimulus package yesterday, raised some eyebrows when the glowing report mentioned nothing of the myriad of complaints coming from those who are supposed recipients of the funding:
Vice-President Biden's robust defense of the stimulus package yesterday, raised some eyebrows when the glowing report mentioned nothing of the myriad of complaints coming from those who are supposed recipients of the funding:
'Biden, Obama's chief stimulus cheerleader, proudly pointed to more than 2,200 highway projects Thursday funded by the program, but didn't mention the growing frustration among contractors that infrastructure money is only trickling out and thus far hasn't delivered the needed boost in jobs. ...Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel said last month he will examine the Federal Aviation Administration's process for selecting programs for the $1.1 billion in grant money. His announcement came after his office discovered that the Obama administration used stimulus money to pay for 50 airport projects that didn't meet the grant criteria and approved projects at four airports with a history of mismanaging federal grants.
And Biden praised the more than 2,400 military construction projects paid for with stimulus money, but ignored the millions of dollars in savings the Defense Department lost because it hasn't competitively bid many of the jobs.
The Defense Department frequently awards no-bid work to small contractors for repairs at military bases under the stimulus, costing taxpayers millions of dollars more than when businesses compete for the work, an Associated Press analysis of 570 such contracts found.'
The problem is, the stimulus was supposed to be a quick shot in the arm to protect against rising jobless rates, and boost spending. While the rate of unemployment growth has fallen, total jobless numbers continue to rise, hitting 9.7% nationally by the end of August. And, as Biden himself acknowledged, the final implementation of the stimulus will be rather slow (stretching out over two years by most estimates). There doesn't seem to much point to a stimulus that doesn't stimulate in the short run. After that point, the economy would be expected to slowly recover on its own.
25 June 2009
Ahmadinejad Demands an Apology from Obama
'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at President Obama on Thursday, warning him against "interfering" in Iranian affairs and demanding an apology for criticism of a government crackdown on demonstrators protesting alleged electoral fraud.'Think he'll get one?
Ahmadineajd elaborated on why he thinks Obama owes an apology:
'"Why do you speak so impolitely with this great nation?" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at a petrochemical complex's inauguration ceremony in south Iran on Thursday. "I hope you will avoid interfering in Iran's affairs," he added in the speech broadcast on Iranian state television.
The declared winner of his country's dispute election implied that Obama, being a new president, would still gather "experiences", and urged him to "correct himself".'
Please, stop throwing things at your computer screen.
Mousavi continues to defy the government, although his whereabouts are not verified. He continues (or someone does) to post defiance on his website. 'Iran protest leader Mir Hossein Mousavi says he holds those behind alleged "rigged" elections responsible for bloodshed during recent protests. In a defiant statement on his website, he called for future protests to be in a way which would not "create tension." He complained of "complete" restrictions on his access to people and a crackdown on his media group. A BBC correspondent in Tehran says the statement is a direct challenge to Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.'
Apparently at least some of the demonstrators continue to battle on as well. 'Eyewitness reports say there have been clashes near the parliament building in the capital Tehran, in the streets around Baharestan Square. Severe reporting restrictions in Iran mean the BBC cannot verify the reports. The new protests came hours after Iran's supreme leader said he would "not yield" over the election result. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei again said the result would stand, despite days of protests in which at least 17 people are reported to have died.'
09 February 2009
28 January 2009
We're sorry, so sorry ...
Can't you just hear Brenda Lee singing her classic song when you read this? Apparently Ahmadinejad thinks that we will apologize for opposing nuclear development by Iran. Maybe we'll even apologize for Pres. Carter's decision to give refuge to the Shah. At least, that's what he thinks he can push on the new Obama Administration. Hopefully, Mr. Hope and Change will have the guts to stand up to him. Otherwise, get ready for rug burns.
25 January 2009
Change we can believe in?
On President Obama's first full day in office, he signed strict new 'transparency' rules, including regulations on the revolving door between K Street and government. Apparently those rules were signed a little too quickly because he turned around two days later to request an exception to these new rules to allow William Lynn to be the new Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist until last month. This about face turned out to be too much for Campbell Brown on CNN, who pleaded with the Obama Administration to enact 'actual transparency.' On a slightly less serious note, The Technology Liberation Front is griping that the administration is violating transparency commitments by not immediately posting documents related to meetings with non-governmental entities.
So what do you think? Is this the kind of change the voters were hoping for?
In the meanwhile, the proposals for a 'Bad Bank,' to absorb all bad (or potentially bad) holdings by major banks (in the hopes of freeing up the credit markets) have now risen to as high as $6 trillion. These allocations would be on top of the stimulus proposals (running between $700 billion and $1 trillion), and on top of the allocations from last year. At this rate, the debt burden from the 2008 - 2010 fiscal years won't be paid for at least six generations. That's not the kind of change I'm hoping to pass on down to my child and future generations.
So what do you think? Is this the kind of change the voters were hoping for?
In the meanwhile, the proposals for a 'Bad Bank,' to absorb all bad (or potentially bad) holdings by major banks (in the hopes of freeing up the credit markets) have now risen to as high as $6 trillion. These allocations would be on top of the stimulus proposals (running between $700 billion and $1 trillion), and on top of the allocations from last year. At this rate, the debt burden from the 2008 - 2010 fiscal years won't be paid for at least six generations. That's not the kind of change I'm hoping to pass on down to my child and future generations.
20 January 2009
Fearing fear
The oaths are over, and today's inauguration was indeed majestic. As Michael Reagan just said on ABC, it's President Obama's day, and he's earned it. Well, he's certainly earned the day. I don't know that I like the concept that he's 'earned' a $170M day secured by 40,000 personnel. That seems incredibly excessive, but at least the Inaugural Commission has promised to release donor names for those who gave more than $200.00.
I find myself thinking of Fred Barnes article in the Weekly Standard, titled "The Only Thing We Have to Fear." The article focuses on the big concerns that many of us have with the policy proposals that came out during the Obama campaign and subsequently. The first 'thing to fear' caught and held my attention throughout the rest of the article; we're afraid he doesn't know what he's talking about. Not in a general sense - he's a smart person and an excellent speaker. No, we are worried that he doesn't understand the fiscal and policy fallout that will occur if he enacts all he has said, and that he doesn't even have a solid plan in place (witnessed by the many changes to numbers of jobs, financing of the stimulus plan, tax rates, etc.). The rest of the article continued to ring true for me.
However, the main concept in the article; that we should be afraid; is not helpful and is unhealthy. It's our job as conservatives of all stripes to respect the office (and the man if possible), and provide opposition and challenge. Letting ourselves become paralyzed with fear will not help the party to rebuild, will not help advance our cause, and will make us seem like whiners, rather than an intelligent opposition. So don't be afraid, but be wary, cautious and willing to see if just maybe some of our worst fears are ungrounded.
I find myself thinking of Fred Barnes article in the Weekly Standard, titled "The Only Thing We Have to Fear." The article focuses on the big concerns that many of us have with the policy proposals that came out during the Obama campaign and subsequently. The first 'thing to fear' caught and held my attention throughout the rest of the article; we're afraid he doesn't know what he's talking about. Not in a general sense - he's a smart person and an excellent speaker. No, we are worried that he doesn't understand the fiscal and policy fallout that will occur if he enacts all he has said, and that he doesn't even have a solid plan in place (witnessed by the many changes to numbers of jobs, financing of the stimulus plan, tax rates, etc.). The rest of the article continued to ring true for me.
However, the main concept in the article; that we should be afraid; is not helpful and is unhealthy. It's our job as conservatives of all stripes to respect the office (and the man if possible), and provide opposition and challenge. Letting ourselves become paralyzed with fear will not help the party to rebuild, will not help advance our cause, and will make us seem like whiners, rather than an intelligent opposition. So don't be afraid, but be wary, cautious and willing to see if just maybe some of our worst fears are ungrounded.
18 January 2009
Back and weirded out
The Moderate Conservative is back after a nearly two month break, and feeling like I've entered an alternative universe. My party is in disarray and retreat (Mel Martinez, why the h--- are you leaving after one term?!), and for some reason, I find myself identifying with the writing of Camille Paglia at Salon.com. Of course, she perpetually sounds like a liberal whose lost her bearings, and whose common sense makes her sympathetic to more conservative leanings. Just look at her article from right after the election (title link).
I hope I wasn't the only one disappointed by the pre-inaugural concert broadcast today on PBS on HBO (huh?). Not the music - most of that was pretty fun; it was the thematic sense gained from the music, speeches, prayer (by the lovely Gene Robinson), etc. The theme seemed to be one of, heah! Everything's good because we've intelligently elected the next Messiah, who has arisen to make all well. It all culminated with Pete Sieger singing "This land is your land ..." It's a song I enjoy, but was proclaimed to be the greatest song ever written about America. Help! Get me out of this time-space warp please!
On a happy note, the Steelers are hanging on to a razor-thin lead in the AFC championship. Just four minutes to go, and we're back in the Superbowl! Wait, no, we just won! Another touchdown with 4:24 to go. I love the long-haired dude whose name I can never remember, and I love Ben!
I hope I wasn't the only one disappointed by the pre-inaugural concert broadcast today on PBS on HBO (huh?). Not the music - most of that was pretty fun; it was the thematic sense gained from the music, speeches, prayer (by the lovely Gene Robinson), etc. The theme seemed to be one of, heah! Everything's good because we've intelligently elected the next Messiah, who has arisen to make all well. It all culminated with Pete Sieger singing "This land is your land ..." It's a song I enjoy, but was proclaimed to be the greatest song ever written about America. Help! Get me out of this time-space warp please!
On a happy note, the Steelers are hanging on to a razor-thin lead in the AFC championship. Just four minutes to go, and we're back in the Superbowl! Wait, no, we just won! Another touchdown with 4:24 to go. I love the long-haired dude whose name I can never remember, and I love Ben!
24 November 2008
Bailout kings
As Pres-Elect Obama looks at a $500B - (by some estimates) $1trillion rescue package, it's important to look at the fundamental differences between idea of an economic stimulus and a 'bailout.' Obama's plan calls for a massive government jobs creation program (2.5 million on government-funded and regulated infrastructure, green-technologies, and other jobs), a large tax credit program, and a rescue of mortgage-holders going down the river. While Obama wouldn't specify numbers in today's news conference (he says he wants his new economic team to propose to him first), one thing is certain. A stimulus of this size would create a massive deficit and long-term debt, far beyond what we're looking at already. Obama acknowledged this fact in his news conference, but made not commitments as to how this debt would be dealt with, other than the shop-worn promise to look at the budget line-by-line. I don't think he's going to find $2 trillion (an estimate of all of the stimulus & rescue packages combined) to cut from the budget, so several generations are going to be footing this bill. He seems to have moderated his position on eliminating the Bush tax cuts somewhat, hinting that they may be allowed to expire on schedule rather than be eliminated.
Obama was asked about what he thought of the Citigroup bailout and proposed rescue of Detroit, and managed to dance mightily around these questions as well. In case you haven't turned on the news in the last couple of nights, Citigroup lost over half its stock value in less than a week after investors decided they were probably exaggerating the stability of their positions. The government promised to guaranteed a $306-billion loan package, which made Wall-Street happy, but may or may not be of long-term benefit. Sec. Paulson seemed uncertain of why this bailout will work in the long-run, and gave the same basic explanation provided with the AIG rescue - too big to fail. Probably true, but it's a bit disconcerting when there seems to be no clear plan for execution and success. Obama seems to think that as long as it looks like it could be successful, it's worth trying.
When Obama was asked about the Detroit bailout, he took the Nancy Pelosi line of 'we can't let them fail, but they need a good plan.' The Guardian had an interesting look at this on Sunday, comparing the successful rescue of Chrysler in the 1980s with the failed rescue of the UK's Leyland auto company which involved a government takeover. Two important facts jumped out of that article: in the case of Chrysler, Lee Iacocco was an expert who had already cleaned house and made an intensive restructuring plan before coming to Congress for the loan; the Leyland takeover involved major, intensive government-management of all aspects of the company, dooming it to failure. Neither Congress nor the federal government have good track records of managing much of anything. They need to leave that to the experts in individual fields, and deal with basic governance. My problem with the current proposed rescue is that Congress just promised the big-three a $25B loan in September, and rather than justifying how it will be used and how they'll restructure, the auto-industry is turning right around, hat in hand to ask for more. The auto industry has demonstrated failed planning and structure for years now, and shows no sign of turning that around.
There are certainly economists of all stripes right now recommending a further economic stimulus, but there's a big difference between a stimulus and a bailout. A bailout rescues someone or something, maybe with strings attached, but with no real means of ensuring operational change. A stimulus provides incentives to change, maybe with shot of cash, but leaves it to the market, or the individual, to correct mistakes. A stimulus doesn't make the assumption that government can and should be the major employer, manager and baby-sitter of record. That's just what the packages on the table will do - seems like a bailout to me.
Obama was asked about what he thought of the Citigroup bailout and proposed rescue of Detroit, and managed to dance mightily around these questions as well. In case you haven't turned on the news in the last couple of nights, Citigroup lost over half its stock value in less than a week after investors decided they were probably exaggerating the stability of their positions. The government promised to guaranteed a $306-billion loan package, which made Wall-Street happy, but may or may not be of long-term benefit. Sec. Paulson seemed uncertain of why this bailout will work in the long-run, and gave the same basic explanation provided with the AIG rescue - too big to fail. Probably true, but it's a bit disconcerting when there seems to be no clear plan for execution and success. Obama seems to think that as long as it looks like it could be successful, it's worth trying.
When Obama was asked about the Detroit bailout, he took the Nancy Pelosi line of 'we can't let them fail, but they need a good plan.' The Guardian had an interesting look at this on Sunday, comparing the successful rescue of Chrysler in the 1980s with the failed rescue of the UK's Leyland auto company which involved a government takeover. Two important facts jumped out of that article: in the case of Chrysler, Lee Iacocco was an expert who had already cleaned house and made an intensive restructuring plan before coming to Congress for the loan; the Leyland takeover involved major, intensive government-management of all aspects of the company, dooming it to failure. Neither Congress nor the federal government have good track records of managing much of anything. They need to leave that to the experts in individual fields, and deal with basic governance. My problem with the current proposed rescue is that Congress just promised the big-three a $25B loan in September, and rather than justifying how it will be used and how they'll restructure, the auto-industry is turning right around, hat in hand to ask for more. The auto industry has demonstrated failed planning and structure for years now, and shows no sign of turning that around.
There are certainly economists of all stripes right now recommending a further economic stimulus, but there's a big difference between a stimulus and a bailout. A bailout rescues someone or something, maybe with strings attached, but with no real means of ensuring operational change. A stimulus provides incentives to change, maybe with shot of cash, but leaves it to the market, or the individual, to correct mistakes. A stimulus doesn't make the assumption that government can and should be the major employer, manager and baby-sitter of record. That's just what the packages on the table will do - seems like a bailout to me.
11 November 2008
How nice: a bald, toothless, hypoallergenic dog for the Obamas
Well now, don't you think this is just a perfect fit for the President-Elect, who is about to meet a manufactured challenge brought on by a world eager to test the new kid on the block? Gird your loins, puppy!
07 November 2008
The Chicago Machine Rolls On: MSM Finally Does Some Reporting
In a sign that the MSM may be recovering a modicum of dignity, reporting on the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as the next Chief of Staff is not nearly all rosy. The Chicago Tribune (title article) reported on his deep ties to the corrupt Chicago Daley Machine (you know, the one that produced our President Elect). ABC News reported on the fact that Emanuel was director of Freddie Mac during the time it was cooking the books. Hmmm, since Pres.-Elect Obama is one of the largest recipients of money from them, I guess having the guy who donated to you makes sense. Even the NY Times seems a little troubled. It's a bit late, guys, to convince us you weren't thoroughly rolled, but maybe this indicates the honeymoon won't extend for four years.
Risk sensitivity and voters
While sitting in an Ecological Modeling Class the other day, I had a revelation about why normally sane, rational people were so caught up in the Obamamania. They are economic risk-takers. Risk-sensitivity theory is based on modeling the behavior of consumers based on their preferences when faced with a choice between a 50/50 chance of a high payoff (vs. no or low payoff) and a 100% chance of a moderate payoff. These models are the whole reason for the targeting of low-income and low-education consumers by lotto boards; people with lower incomes and lower educations often (note, not always - no model is perfect) choose the riskier option. They will spend money on the chance of a high payoff, knowing they're more likely to get no or a low payoff. Those who have more, tend to be more cautious and choose the 'certainty' option. They are more likely to choose the 100% option of a moderate payoff.
This sounds to me to be very close to what happened on Tuesday. Only in this case, I think we'd have to add into the 'low-income' category, those who perceive themselves (perhaps 2nd hand) as suffering. These voters were willing to take a gamble on someone who has no experience, a murky background, and offers 'pie-in-the-sky' rhetoric over a true American hero with more experience in his little finger. The Obama-lovers were "risk prone." To get themselves away from what they perceive as the source of their woes (the Republican Party), they gambled. Even with this gambling addiction sweeping our country, and the Obama campaign doing its darndest to buy the election, John McCain would still have won if it weren't for the addition of those 'we hate him so much we'll doom the entire country' Republicans who NEVER SHOWED UP TO VOTE. I'm really angriest at them. How dare they thumb their noses at all of us. Now we all have to find out what the gamble will bring us.
This sounds to me to be very close to what happened on Tuesday. Only in this case, I think we'd have to add into the 'low-income' category, those who perceive themselves (perhaps 2nd hand) as suffering. These voters were willing to take a gamble on someone who has no experience, a murky background, and offers 'pie-in-the-sky' rhetoric over a true American hero with more experience in his little finger. The Obama-lovers were "risk prone." To get themselves away from what they perceive as the source of their woes (the Republican Party), they gambled. Even with this gambling addiction sweeping our country, and the Obama campaign doing its darndest to buy the election, John McCain would still have won if it weren't for the addition of those 'we hate him so much we'll doom the entire country' Republicans who NEVER SHOWED UP TO VOTE. I'm really angriest at them. How dare they thumb their noses at all of us. Now we all have to find out what the gamble will bring us.
04 November 2008
Praying as we lurch left
The Wall Street Journal article published earlier today, titled 'We Could Be In for a Lurch to the Left," was astute and powerful. It examines the potential effects of a President Obama without restraints from Congress. We now know that scenario to have come true. The next President of the United States will be Barack Obama. And we are all going to find out what it will be to live under a President almost unchecked by the Congress. Fortunately, the Senate does not, at this time, appear to have passed the 'magic 60' number, which would allow the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Here in Florida, while we appear to have gone to Obama, more local races and Congressional seats have gone to or been maintained by the Republicans, so we did contribute to providing a check to the Democratic momentum.
What are we going to do? I just drank my third glass of wine and ate my fourth mini-bar of chocolate in self comfort. But, tomorrow I get up for work as normal to give a lecture, and tomorrow afternoon I finish off working on my dissertation proposal. Life will go on. What comes next? I have to turn to John McCain's more than gracious concession speech (see the title link for the text). We must love our country enough to continue to work for her. We must love our fellow citizens (even if they voted for the wrong man) enough to continue to work with them. We must never back down on these things. When I was working phones in the local victory office this past weekend, several volunteers were talking about taking their money and getting out. I totally sympathize, but this is the wrong answer. America needs us. We worked for John McCain because he was the best man for President. We need to continue to work for the country he has sacrificed his entire life for.
Spend tonight (OK, two nights) mourning. I certainly wept during John McCain's acceptance speech. Then, get up. Stop whining, and work to fix our country. Fight against the Democratic machine that's coming into power whenever appropriate. Never let anything slide as a voter. Don't stop. Above all, love the United States of America rather than wallowing in anger and bitterness. We can do nothing to change these results, but we can do much to change the future.
What are we going to do? I just drank my third glass of wine and ate my fourth mini-bar of chocolate in self comfort. But, tomorrow I get up for work as normal to give a lecture, and tomorrow afternoon I finish off working on my dissertation proposal. Life will go on. What comes next? I have to turn to John McCain's more than gracious concession speech (see the title link for the text). We must love our country enough to continue to work for her. We must love our fellow citizens (even if they voted for the wrong man) enough to continue to work with them. We must never back down on these things. When I was working phones in the local victory office this past weekend, several volunteers were talking about taking their money and getting out. I totally sympathize, but this is the wrong answer. America needs us. We worked for John McCain because he was the best man for President. We need to continue to work for the country he has sacrificed his entire life for.
Spend tonight (OK, two nights) mourning. I certainly wept during John McCain's acceptance speech. Then, get up. Stop whining, and work to fix our country. Fight against the Democratic machine that's coming into power whenever appropriate. Never let anything slide as a voter. Don't stop. Above all, love the United States of America rather than wallowing in anger and bitterness. We can do nothing to change these results, but we can do much to change the future.
Reasons 6 and 7 out of 7 to Vote McCain: Obama and Dems Dirty Tricks and McCain's Honor
Dirty Tricks:
Yes, it's true that dirty tricks have never been the purview of any one party or campaign, but this election cycle seems to be dominated by an attempt to quash dissent. There has been a concerted effort on the part of the Obama campaign and Democratic Party to sway the election by taking illegal and unregulated donations from individuals over the donation limit and foreign donors, few of which were routed out by the campaign. There have been reports of rampant voter registration fraud, some reports of actual voter fraud, and intimidation of those trying to investigate the actions of the voter registration group, ACORN. Free speech and free thinking seem to have gone out the window for the party of openness. Joe the Plumber, who holy cow, uses his middle name, has been investigated and is the subject of intimidation and smear campaigns (not to mention open mockery) for daring to ask a real question of Obama. The media has been far more interested in a borrowed wardrobe than its own documented bias. Obama's tax plans have been distorted to sound like no one need ever worry again, and McCain has been falsely smeared with agreeing with every right-wing boogie man ever invented, despite being disliked and distrusted by most. It does on and on. Suffice it to say that Jack Kemp was right; the Obama campaign is attempting to buy and election for an incredibly inexperienced and corrupt politician.
Honor:
McCain is a man who has, given his whole life over to his country. That in and of itself should incline most patriotic Americans to seriously look at voting for him. He dealt with the Keating Five scandal not by hiding from it, burying it or even by pointing out (rightly) that he cleared of all wrongdoing. Instead, he stood up to it, owned his part in the appearance of wrongdoing, and spend the next twenty years working on campaign finance reform. He does not back down in the face of difficulty; he truly loves this country. He has supported immigration reform, environmental protection, strengthening of the military, honesty in politics and in campaign finance, and elimination of corruption and waste.
Do you want a President that that will be for you, for this country and will give it everything he has? A President who will be honest, won't sugarcoat anything, and will work at real economic reform? Finally, do you want a President who will truly be nonpartisan? Vote McCain for President.
Yes, it's true that dirty tricks have never been the purview of any one party or campaign, but this election cycle seems to be dominated by an attempt to quash dissent. There has been a concerted effort on the part of the Obama campaign and Democratic Party to sway the election by taking illegal and unregulated donations from individuals over the donation limit and foreign donors, few of which were routed out by the campaign. There have been reports of rampant voter registration fraud, some reports of actual voter fraud, and intimidation of those trying to investigate the actions of the voter registration group, ACORN. Free speech and free thinking seem to have gone out the window for the party of openness. Joe the Plumber, who holy cow, uses his middle name, has been investigated and is the subject of intimidation and smear campaigns (not to mention open mockery) for daring to ask a real question of Obama. The media has been far more interested in a borrowed wardrobe than its own documented bias. Obama's tax plans have been distorted to sound like no one need ever worry again, and McCain has been falsely smeared with agreeing with every right-wing boogie man ever invented, despite being disliked and distrusted by most. It does on and on. Suffice it to say that Jack Kemp was right; the Obama campaign is attempting to buy and election for an incredibly inexperienced and corrupt politician.
Honor:
McCain is a man who has, given his whole life over to his country. That in and of itself should incline most patriotic Americans to seriously look at voting for him. He dealt with the Keating Five scandal not by hiding from it, burying it or even by pointing out (rightly) that he cleared of all wrongdoing. Instead, he stood up to it, owned his part in the appearance of wrongdoing, and spend the next twenty years working on campaign finance reform. He does not back down in the face of difficulty; he truly loves this country. He has supported immigration reform, environmental protection, strengthening of the military, honesty in politics and in campaign finance, and elimination of corruption and waste.
Do you want a President that that will be for you, for this country and will give it everything he has? A President who will be honest, won't sugarcoat anything, and will work at real economic reform? Finally, do you want a President who will truly be nonpartisan? Vote McCain for President.
03 November 2008
Reason 5 of 7 to Vote McCain: Infanticide Light
I spent a lot of time debating the title of this article (the phrase was one I picked up in reading - I can't tell you exactly where I first saw it). After all, infanticide is a very serious charge, and not one to be lightly used, so a word of explanation is needed. I do not believe that Obama "wants" random killing of infants. The trouble with Obama's policy, is that he also doesn't see a need to step in an prevent it. I'm sure he truly and honestly loves his children and his family, and that is honorable and noble in any person. But, he doesn't extend that love of children to include the unborn, and those born from botched abortions.
When voting against the Illinois version of the Born-Alive legislation, he claimed (see title link) that he would have voted for it it it had the adequate protection language, for the health and life of the mother, contained within the federal bill. Two versions of the Illinois bill had nearly identical language. He said similar things about the other versions of the same bill and for a partial-birth abortion ban in Illinois. At the Saddleback 'debate' he said that knowing when life begins is "... above [his] paygrade."
Ultimately, I suppose that statement may be true for anyone, but that is not an excuse to 'duck and cover.' In environmental law and policy classes, one of the principles I learned (and learned to appreciate) is the 'Precautionary Principle.' This principle states that if a policy decision is needed that may impact human or environmental health is partially unquantifiable and negative ways, then the more cautious approach should be taken until the issue is better understood. I can't claim to know when God joins a soul to a living body, so I choose to rely on the 'Precautionary Principle.' I assume that human life and rights begin at conception, to prevent a grievous and evil error.
Obama may be the next President. His job is to provide leadership. The only leadership he has provided on the issue of right-to-life is to side with 'structural feminists' and Marxists, by his own admission. This means never once, not even once, taking any stance that would impede abortion in any way for any reason at any point in development, including if a baby if born alive following a botched abortion (except in rhetoric). The born-alive arguments are well known, but just in case you've missed it, I've included here, with some reluctance, an upload and a link to a video about the Born-Alive Protection Act. I'm reluctant only because of the ending of the video, which reads "No Hussein." I truly think that throwing his middle name around only makes us sound prejudiced and angry, and is clearly designed to associate Obama with his Muslim heritage. I don't think he is a Muslim, I think think that he adheres to core Christian principles poorly. I know quite a few socially or economically (or both) liberal Christians who put their political ideology ahead of Biblical authority (or who twist Biblical authority to mean whatever they want it to mean). Interestingly, I'm both a Christian and a reproductive biologist (I'm interested in environmental impacts on the reproductive health of endangered mammals), and so have a particular view on the start of life. While I definitely think it important to allow free choice in the case of incest, rape, and wear a woman's life or health is truly endangered (all situations where a woman made no choice to bring her to that point), I support restricting abortion outside of that. I also think it unconsiounable to allow minors to seek unrestricted access to abortion (including across state lines, something else Obama voted not to prohibit) without parental notification. Obviously, a responsible piece of legislation would need to build in protections for girls who are incest victims, or who live in abusive households, but to prohibit any attempts at parental notification laws is ridiculous. I return to my original thesis on Obama's decision making (see postings from two months ago): he is corrupt and in debt to far-left interests, and will always decide their way.
So, what to do if you feel that abortion and poverty are of equal importance on the pro-life spectrum? This is a defensible and ethical stance to take since Scripture mentions poverty more times than almost anything else. If you vote for Obama on the presumption that he is better for the poor (and assumption I have contested in earlier articles), you must accept that the unborn and newly, accidentally-born will be thrown to the side. Obama's record is wholly clear on this issue, as are the records of the Democratic leadership (who are all on board with nearly unrestricted abortion access). You need only look at Obama's wholehearted support for the Freedom of Choice Act to see this.
If you vote for McCain, you'll need to take into account your fears about his policies to the poor. Let me try to ally some of those fears for you. McCain was the primary author and co-sponsor of the immigration reform bill two years ago. For supporting this bill, he earned the wrath of most of his party, and many Democrats who were concerned about immigrants 'taking' jobs (and entirely bogus argument for most immigrants who take jobs no one else will, like picking lettuce). He supports legislation to continue lowering taxes on all income levels, including the lower, middle-class. Leadership on bills like these is not the action of one who is neither persuadable or uninterested (unlike Obama who shows no interest in listening to others on this issue and has never shown leadership). On the pro-life side, McCain has a clear record of supporting pro-life issues, but of being measured and responsible. He supports stem-cell research and moderate restrictions on abortion. While he thinks Roe v. Wade was irresponsible, he would not impose a litmus test on judges. These are the decisions of a man who tries to listen to others, balances competing demands, and still remains true to his principles and beliefs. These things are all true despite the outrageous media bias this election cycle
Do you want a candidate who stand for the unborn and vulnerable of all ages? Vote McCain for President.
When voting against the Illinois version of the Born-Alive legislation, he claimed (see title link) that he would have voted for it it it had the adequate protection language, for the health and life of the mother, contained within the federal bill. Two versions of the Illinois bill had nearly identical language. He said similar things about the other versions of the same bill and for a partial-birth abortion ban in Illinois. At the Saddleback 'debate' he said that knowing when life begins is "... above [his] paygrade."
Ultimately, I suppose that statement may be true for anyone, but that is not an excuse to 'duck and cover.' In environmental law and policy classes, one of the principles I learned (and learned to appreciate) is the 'Precautionary Principle.' This principle states that if a policy decision is needed that may impact human or environmental health is partially unquantifiable and negative ways, then the more cautious approach should be taken until the issue is better understood. I can't claim to know when God joins a soul to a living body, so I choose to rely on the 'Precautionary Principle.' I assume that human life and rights begin at conception, to prevent a grievous and evil error.
Obama may be the next President. His job is to provide leadership. The only leadership he has provided on the issue of right-to-life is to side with 'structural feminists' and Marxists, by his own admission. This means never once, not even once, taking any stance that would impede abortion in any way for any reason at any point in development, including if a baby if born alive following a botched abortion (except in rhetoric). The born-alive arguments are well known, but just in case you've missed it, I've included here, with some reluctance, an upload and a link to a video about the Born-Alive Protection Act. I'm reluctant only because of the ending of the video, which reads "No Hussein." I truly think that throwing his middle name around only makes us sound prejudiced and angry, and is clearly designed to associate Obama with his Muslim heritage. I don't think he is a Muslim, I think think that he adheres to core Christian principles poorly. I know quite a few socially or economically (or both) liberal Christians who put their political ideology ahead of Biblical authority (or who twist Biblical authority to mean whatever they want it to mean). Interestingly, I'm both a Christian and a reproductive biologist (I'm interested in environmental impacts on the reproductive health of endangered mammals), and so have a particular view on the start of life. While I definitely think it important to allow free choice in the case of incest, rape, and wear a woman's life or health is truly endangered (all situations where a woman made no choice to bring her to that point), I support restricting abortion outside of that. I also think it unconsiounable to allow minors to seek unrestricted access to abortion (including across state lines, something else Obama voted not to prohibit) without parental notification. Obviously, a responsible piece of legislation would need to build in protections for girls who are incest victims, or who live in abusive households, but to prohibit any attempts at parental notification laws is ridiculous. I return to my original thesis on Obama's decision making (see postings from two months ago): he is corrupt and in debt to far-left interests, and will always decide their way.
So, what to do if you feel that abortion and poverty are of equal importance on the pro-life spectrum? This is a defensible and ethical stance to take since Scripture mentions poverty more times than almost anything else. If you vote for Obama on the presumption that he is better for the poor (and assumption I have contested in earlier articles), you must accept that the unborn and newly, accidentally-born will be thrown to the side. Obama's record is wholly clear on this issue, as are the records of the Democratic leadership (who are all on board with nearly unrestricted abortion access). You need only look at Obama's wholehearted support for the Freedom of Choice Act to see this.
If you vote for McCain, you'll need to take into account your fears about his policies to the poor. Let me try to ally some of those fears for you. McCain was the primary author and co-sponsor of the immigration reform bill two years ago. For supporting this bill, he earned the wrath of most of his party, and many Democrats who were concerned about immigrants 'taking' jobs (and entirely bogus argument for most immigrants who take jobs no one else will, like picking lettuce). He supports legislation to continue lowering taxes on all income levels, including the lower, middle-class. Leadership on bills like these is not the action of one who is neither persuadable or uninterested (unlike Obama who shows no interest in listening to others on this issue and has never shown leadership). On the pro-life side, McCain has a clear record of supporting pro-life issues, but of being measured and responsible. He supports stem-cell research and moderate restrictions on abortion. While he thinks Roe v. Wade was irresponsible, he would not impose a litmus test on judges. These are the decisions of a man who tries to listen to others, balances competing demands, and still remains true to his principles and beliefs. These things are all true despite the outrageous media bias this election cycle
Do you want a candidate who stand for the unborn and vulnerable of all ages? Vote McCain for President.
Reason 4 of 7 to Vote McCain: The Second Amendment
Gun ownership has reared up again as an issue in a national election, particularly for hunters and handgun owners. Sen. Obama promises that he interprets the 2nd Amendment to mean personal ownership and use are protected, and that the 'orderly militia' clause is separate, and does not impede on personal weapons ownership and use. Sen. McCain also clearly supports personal handgun ownership and use, as well as weapons and ammunition for hunters. It seems the only way to differentiate the position between the two men is to examine their records, and herein lies the trouble for Obama.
Obama has made a big point of appealing to SW Pennsylvania residents, West Virginians, southern Ohio residents, and any place where hunting has deep roots or where handgun ownership is an accepted and open part of the culture. Pasted below is his voting record on gun issues according to the Vote Smart website (a non-partisan website that tracks voting records).
Gun Issues
(Back to top)
The federal voting record is a mixed bag as far as gun-rights are concerned, but his state voting record is much more consistent (and lengthy), and uniformly seeks to restrict 2nd Amendment rights both directly and indirectly. I've again pasted it in below.
It hardly seems necessary to lay out John McCain's record and statements, but he has clearly supported 2nd Amendment rights, while still supporting reasonable regulation of certain weapons types, etc. Below is his record from Vote Smart. I think it reasonable to say we can safely omit the VP records - both are very well-known, and on opposite sides of this issue.
Do you want to protect your 2nd Amendment rights?
Vote John McCain for President!
Obama has made a big point of appealing to SW Pennsylvania residents, West Virginians, southern Ohio residents, and any place where hunting has deep roots or where handgun ownership is an accepted and open part of the culture. Pasted below is his voting record on gun issues according to the Vote Smart website (a non-partisan website that tracks voting records).
Gun Issues
(Back to top)
| 02/25/2008 | Prohibiting Funds in the Bill S 1200 from Being Used to Decrease Gun Ownership S Amdt 4070 | NV | Amendment Adopted - Senate (78 - 11) |
| 07/13/2006 | Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment S Amdt 4615 | Y | Amendment Adopted - Senate (84 - 16) |
| 07/29/2005 | Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill S 397 | N | Bill Passed - Senate (65 - 31) |
| 07/28/2005 | Child Safety Lock Amendment S AMDT 1626 | Y | Amendment Adopted - Senate (70 - 30) |
The federal voting record is a mixed bag as far as gun-rights are concerned, but his state voting record is much more consistent (and lengthy), and uniformly seeks to restrict 2nd Amendment rights both directly and indirectly. I've again pasted it in below.
- Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
- FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
- Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
- Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
- 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
- Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
- Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
- Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
- Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
- Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
- Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
It hardly seems necessary to lay out John McCain's record and statements, but he has clearly supported 2nd Amendment rights, while still supporting reasonable regulation of certain weapons types, etc. Below is his record from Vote Smart. I think it reasonable to say we can safely omit the VP records - both are very well-known, and on opposite sides of this issue.
| 02/25/2008 | Prohibiting Funds in the Bill S 1200 from Being Used to Decrease Gun Ownership S Amdt 4070 | NV | Amendment Adopted - Senate (78 - 11) |
| 07/13/2006 | Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment S Amdt 4615 | Y | Amendment Adopted - Senate (84 - 16) |
| 07/29/2005 | Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill S 397 | Y | Bill Passed - Senate (65 - 31) |
| 07/28/2005 | Child Safety Lock Amendment S AMDT 1626 | Y | Amendment Adopted - Senate (70 - 30) |
| 03/02/2004 | Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill S 1805 | Y | Bill Failed - Senate (8 - 90) |
| 05/20/1999 | Gun Show Sale Regulation Amendment S Amdt 362 | N | Amendment Adopted - Senate (51 - 50) |
| 07/21/1998 | Gun Lock Requirement Amendment S Amdt 3230 | Y | Amendment Tabled - Senate (61 - 39) |
| 11/20/1993 | Brady Handgun Bill HR 1025 | N | Bill Passed - Senate (63 - 36) |
| 11/17/1993 | Prohibiting the Possession of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons S Amdt 1152 | N | Amendment Adopted - Senate (56 - 43) |
| 11/05/1993 | Charging Teens as Adults for Crimes Involving a Firearm S Amdt 1117 | NV | Amendment Adopted - Senate (64 - 23) |
Do you want to protect your 2nd Amendment rights?
Vote John McCain for President!
01 November 2008
Reason 3 of 7 to Vote McCain: Taxes and Revenue Streams
One year ago, the Wall Street Journal reported on the inverse relationship between higher taxes rates and revenue streams (click the title link to see the original). In short, they reported an often observed truth - within limits, tax rate reductions lead to better reporting and more complete payment, thus increasing government income streams. This should make sense even on a basic and general level. If one is not taxed unreasonably, one is more likely to report full income, and not attempt to evade one's tax burden. If one is taxed at the 70% level, however, 'escape and evasion' becomes the modus operandi. That is exactly what Obama is proposing to do, and its only real effect is going to be to raise the deficit.
The current deficit is expected to top $ 1 trillion shortly, and even if Obama can get Congress to limit tax increases to the $120 K mark of income (yes, the goal has moved again), and even if not one household in that income bracket made any attempt to evade taxation, that tax burden will not overcome the current deficit. If all of Obama's spending proposals go through, the deficit is likely to top $4 trillion in short order, leaving two choices: increases taxes on everyone from $40K/annually on up, or leave a huge deficit that will be the responsibility of several generations to pay. This is not a fiscal policy that will lead to increased employment and growth - it's a jobs-killer. If one adds in the increased taxes on Capitol Gains, Medicare, health insurance, etc., it becomes impossible to maintain a limit on who sees a tax increase and who pays. In fact, those additional tax burdens ensure that everyone sees a tax increase, and that our grandchildren will be paying for the country's addiction to easy spending and welfare. John McCain is right - what we need is a return to fiscal discipline, limited spending, and the right policy to grow jobs and the economy, namely a freeze or reduction in taxes. Do the right thing for your country and your children - Vote McCain.
The current deficit is expected to top $ 1 trillion shortly, and even if Obama can get Congress to limit tax increases to the $120 K mark of income (yes, the goal has moved again), and even if not one household in that income bracket made any attempt to evade taxation, that tax burden will not overcome the current deficit. If all of Obama's spending proposals go through, the deficit is likely to top $4 trillion in short order, leaving two choices: increases taxes on everyone from $40K/annually on up, or leave a huge deficit that will be the responsibility of several generations to pay. This is not a fiscal policy that will lead to increased employment and growth - it's a jobs-killer. If one adds in the increased taxes on Capitol Gains, Medicare, health insurance, etc., it becomes impossible to maintain a limit on who sees a tax increase and who pays. In fact, those additional tax burdens ensure that everyone sees a tax increase, and that our grandchildren will be paying for the country's addiction to easy spending and welfare. John McCain is right - what we need is a return to fiscal discipline, limited spending, and the right policy to grow jobs and the economy, namely a freeze or reduction in taxes. Do the right thing for your country and your children - Vote McCain.
31 October 2008
Reason 2 of 7 to Vote McCain: The "S" Word
If one reads the website for the World Socialist Movement, one is left with a Utopian view. Everyone will voluntarily work at what they most want to and share goods in common that are produced only for use, according the website. Karl Marx was a little more blunt, and called for a proletarian revolution, while Socialist Action states that socialism can not be enacted through normal democratic processes, and calls for mass protest and revolution. Don't panic! Obama isn't going to start a world-revolution , and I doubt anyone cares whether or not he shared toys or a peanut butter sandwich. Because despite the Utopian language of some, and revolutionary language of others, the heart of socialism is the sacrifice of individual liberty for the sake of collective thinking and control of production. That is the heart of socialism. I've heard plenty of people state that they wouldn't mind a little sacrifice of liberty in exchange for care and justice for the poor, state health care, and yes, some wealth redistribution - that is as long as they were on the receiving end. But that's one of the main problems with socialism. It tells us that we all need to help each other, and then whips right around and tells us that some of us are too successful and others deserve a share of that success. This concept reminds me of Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican Convention acceptance speech where he famously said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." There is no vice, in the mind of the socialist, in extreme redistribution, and their is no virtue in moderating that stance.
Now I am a Christian, and the Bible has more verses about the poor and destitute than just about any other subject. It is my Christian duty to provide true charity (love) to any who need and want it. That is my Christian duty. But is it the responsibility of the state? Most of us could agree that the state should bear a collective responsibility to help those who truly need help, particularly those who, for whatever reason, can not physically work or better themselves. But what about those who can. If I out-compete my neighbor, and earn $10K more a year, is he entitled to some of my earnings, simply because I did better? I don't believe that. Further, every state that has tried this system long-term has failed, been forced to change, or exists in a perpetual twilight (ala Cuba). It's very true that Capitalism unchecked descends into chaotic greed, and that all Capitalism rests in part on some measure of competition. But, socialism is a disincentivizing system. It reward mediocrity.
Competition is what motivates individuals to push hard, to succeed beyond the expectations of their social setting. That is the very heart of the Middle Class in the US - a desire to better oneself, rather than to be assigned a place in society, and have nothing to work for. Competition increases a society's wealth and productivity. Socialism makes society dependent on the government . That is why McCain and Palin have been labeling Obama a socialist. Not because he shared something, but because he wants to share other people's somethings, and then convince them it was all their idea in the first place. And even if Obama is only moderately socialist in his leanings, even if Biden was really just making another 'gaffe' when he declared that the tax increases would begin at $150K, there is Congress to contend to. The current Congressional leadership (note to the constituencies of these clowns - vote them out!) has made it very clear that they will push for redistribution, and that the burden will start at incomes far lower than $250K.
Tomorrow (well, later today) - taxes. For now, go to the name link below for a hilarious take on the election. The video is on Slashdot.org. It was posted by samzepus, and I bow to his creativity.
Now I am a Christian, and the Bible has more verses about the poor and destitute than just about any other subject. It is my Christian duty to provide true charity (love) to any who need and want it. That is my Christian duty. But is it the responsibility of the state? Most of us could agree that the state should bear a collective responsibility to help those who truly need help, particularly those who, for whatever reason, can not physically work or better themselves. But what about those who can. If I out-compete my neighbor, and earn $10K more a year, is he entitled to some of my earnings, simply because I did better? I don't believe that. Further, every state that has tried this system long-term has failed, been forced to change, or exists in a perpetual twilight (ala Cuba). It's very true that Capitalism unchecked descends into chaotic greed, and that all Capitalism rests in part on some measure of competition. But, socialism is a disincentivizing system. It reward mediocrity.
Competition is what motivates individuals to push hard, to succeed beyond the expectations of their social setting. That is the very heart of the Middle Class in the US - a desire to better oneself, rather than to be assigned a place in society, and have nothing to work for. Competition increases a society's wealth and productivity. Socialism makes society dependent on the government . That is why McCain and Palin have been labeling Obama a socialist. Not because he shared something, but because he wants to share other people's somethings, and then convince them it was all their idea in the first place. And even if Obama is only moderately socialist in his leanings, even if Biden was really just making another 'gaffe' when he declared that the tax increases would begin at $150K, there is Congress to contend to. The current Congressional leadership (note to the constituencies of these clowns - vote them out!) has made it very clear that they will push for redistribution, and that the burden will start at incomes far lower than $250K.
Tomorrow (well, later today) - taxes. For now, go to the name link below for a hilarious take on the election. The video is on Slashdot.org. It was posted by samzepus, and I bow to his creativity.
29 October 2008
Reason 1 of 7 to Vote McCain for President
The first reason for a positive vote for Sen. McCain for President (or if you prefer, a negative vote against Sen. Obama), is their vastly different outlook on the power and uses of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. During the next Presidential term, there are likely to be two to three Supreme Court nominations. Sen. McCain, as he has notably said, is a Federalist. While not a strict Constructionist, he believes in a balance of power between the three federal branches, and that the federal power must be balanced against that of the states (and in many ways subjected to the power of the states). While he has said that he would not impose ideological litmus tests on judges, for which I applaud him while perhaps ruing the outcome for the pro-life movement, he would appoint judges that looked on their power as more restricted. That is, they are not there to make law but to adjudicate the merits of a case UNDER the law.
Sen. Obama tends to believe that the court's power is more fluid and encompassing. The recent release on the internet (see the download below) of a radio interview he gave while a State Senator in IL demonstrates his view that the Supreme Court is more the supreme decider of justice, rather than arbiter of it. Hence the Supreme Court could become the agent of redistribution of power and wealth to right historic wrongs and injustices, particularly if they have lingering effects.
Don't mistake me - justice is important. But the legislative branch is the means by which we change standards and law. And redistribution is the wrong way to right a wrong that stretches back in history. We can not afford to repay every debt, no matter how egregious. What we can do, is ensure economic growth and power are accessible to all who are willing to work for them and contribute to society. And that is not a job for the Supreme Court. Do you want to avoid and 'activist' court intent on imposing the will of the President for justice and redistribution? Vote for McCain.
Sen. Obama tends to believe that the court's power is more fluid and encompassing. The recent release on the internet (see the download below) of a radio interview he gave while a State Senator in IL demonstrates his view that the Supreme Court is more the supreme decider of justice, rather than arbiter of it. Hence the Supreme Court could become the agent of redistribution of power and wealth to right historic wrongs and injustices, particularly if they have lingering effects.
Don't mistake me - justice is important. But the legislative branch is the means by which we change standards and law. And redistribution is the wrong way to right a wrong that stretches back in history. We can not afford to repay every debt, no matter how egregious. What we can do, is ensure economic growth and power are accessible to all who are willing to work for them and contribute to society. And that is not a job for the Supreme Court. Do you want to avoid and 'activist' court intent on imposing the will of the President for justice and redistribution? Vote for McCain.
25 October 2008
Fuzzy Math
Sen. Obama's tax and spending proposals have been dissected in this blog and elsewhere ad nauseum, so I will not dwell on all of them here. My concern in this article is to specifically address the blatant attempts on the part of the Obama campaign do deceive through fuzzy math. The deception specifically relates that most basic of household activities, balancing a checkbook. A caveat: I do not always succeed at this activity myself (mostly from failure to take time), so I can relate to someone who might struggle to do so. I can not however, excuse a planned, deliberate national policy that is not only designed to end in imbalance, but is designed to deceive the public.
Our national debt currently stands at over $1 trillion. Obama's proposed plans for tax rebates and increased spending, amount to around $1.6 trillion. Additionally, he proposes an additional $1.4 trillion according to the National Taxpayers Union. Multiple reports have stated that Obama's proposals would dramatically increase the deficit, would eventually increase taxes on the very middle class he purports to protect, and would slow growth just as we're entering a global recession. Would people get money from from the government under Obama's plans? Yes they would. Would these policies be the best way to grow the economy and spread opportunity (rather than 'the wealth')? No they would not. It is physically impossible for 5% of the populace to take care of a $4 trillion + deficit, and the demands that the Obama policies place on business and individuals in exchange for the benefits they supposedly will receive are onerous at best. The government should be in the business of creating a favorable climate for growth, and then allowing that to succeed or fail, not ensuring that everyone is the same. Freedom and equality depend on limits on government action as much as they do on government action.
How are we going to pay for this massive deficit under the Obama plan? We don't know for certain since Obama has been particularly vague (even more than normally) in stating if he would cut any spending, and what his intentions toward the deficit are. We might have some clues however. In an interview on CNBC the other day, Rep. Barney Franks alternately said we should forget the deficit for awhile and find the 'plenty of other rich people' out there to increase taxes on. There have been several reports examining a possible market reaction to the anti-growth nature of the Obama proposals recently, and of course, we Obama's promise to spread the wealth and Biden's statement that paying taxes is our religious and patriotic duty.
I would agree that paying taxes are necessary and important for government functions. I would even agree that there's a case to be made for increasing the tax rate somewhat on higher income levels. But I find it ludicrous that liberals are constantly referring to all increased taxes as 'progressive' and all decreased taxes as 'regressive' (particularly as concerns higher income tax brackets). The higher the burden a small or middle-sized business has to bear, the less they'll be able to pay for additional work-force. If a small business is pulling in a million a year, after paying the additional taxes under the Obama plan (which the owner is charged at an individual rate as if the business income is a personal take for the owner), the additional health care, the additional Medicare, overhead costs, and reinvestment in the business, there would be precious little left to make the business worthwhile. If the owner then invested what little he or she took home, Obama would then increase the rate of the capitol gains tax paid upon those investments, and increase the tax rate upon the inheritance built over the years.
The Obama policies are quite simply, anti-growth. They are socialist in nature, but worse, they will hand a tremendous deficit down at least several generations. What really bothers me the most, is the consistent attempt by Obama and Biden to sell these policies, in the vaguest of terms, as helpful to the middle-class. These proposals simply don't add up, and are deceptive. This is not change we can believe in. In fact, it's our patriotic duty to vote against it.
Our national debt currently stands at over $1 trillion. Obama's proposed plans for tax rebates and increased spending, amount to around $1.6 trillion. Additionally, he proposes an additional $1.4 trillion according to the National Taxpayers Union. Multiple reports have stated that Obama's proposals would dramatically increase the deficit, would eventually increase taxes on the very middle class he purports to protect, and would slow growth just as we're entering a global recession. Would people get money from from the government under Obama's plans? Yes they would. Would these policies be the best way to grow the economy and spread opportunity (rather than 'the wealth')? No they would not. It is physically impossible for 5% of the populace to take care of a $4 trillion + deficit, and the demands that the Obama policies place on business and individuals in exchange for the benefits they supposedly will receive are onerous at best. The government should be in the business of creating a favorable climate for growth, and then allowing that to succeed or fail, not ensuring that everyone is the same. Freedom and equality depend on limits on government action as much as they do on government action.
How are we going to pay for this massive deficit under the Obama plan? We don't know for certain since Obama has been particularly vague (even more than normally) in stating if he would cut any spending, and what his intentions toward the deficit are. We might have some clues however. In an interview on CNBC the other day, Rep. Barney Franks alternately said we should forget the deficit for awhile and find the 'plenty of other rich people' out there to increase taxes on. There have been several reports examining a possible market reaction to the anti-growth nature of the Obama proposals recently, and of course, we Obama's promise to spread the wealth and Biden's statement that paying taxes is our religious and patriotic duty.
I would agree that paying taxes are necessary and important for government functions. I would even agree that there's a case to be made for increasing the tax rate somewhat on higher income levels. But I find it ludicrous that liberals are constantly referring to all increased taxes as 'progressive' and all decreased taxes as 'regressive' (particularly as concerns higher income tax brackets). The higher the burden a small or middle-sized business has to bear, the less they'll be able to pay for additional work-force. If a small business is pulling in a million a year, after paying the additional taxes under the Obama plan (which the owner is charged at an individual rate as if the business income is a personal take for the owner), the additional health care, the additional Medicare, overhead costs, and reinvestment in the business, there would be precious little left to make the business worthwhile. If the owner then invested what little he or she took home, Obama would then increase the rate of the capitol gains tax paid upon those investments, and increase the tax rate upon the inheritance built over the years.
The Obama policies are quite simply, anti-growth. They are socialist in nature, but worse, they will hand a tremendous deficit down at least several generations. What really bothers me the most, is the consistent attempt by Obama and Biden to sell these policies, in the vaguest of terms, as helpful to the middle-class. These proposals simply don't add up, and are deceptive. This is not change we can believe in. In fact, it's our patriotic duty to vote against it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)