Okay, the election is over and we can all hunker down and try to brace ourselves for the wave of Socialist "Change" that we all "need" so badly. Having lived through the Carter and Clinton Administrations, here is what will happen:
The economy won't recover any time soon, this will lead to a more balanced Congress in 2010. But in the meantime, the Democrats won't waste any time:
- Blocking any and all future efforts to drill our own oil on or off shore
- Nationalizing Abortion on Demand up to and including a near full term infant
- Raising taxes at least on those in the top two rates (since they have more money than they need and it won't hurt them in the downturn.
- Creating "Unionization by Decree", allowing any company to be unionized by having employees sign a 3X5 cards while being "encouraged" by outside organizers who will have government-permission to enter your premises whenever they want.
- Blocking any and all current and future efforts to produce more electricity from anything other than solar and wind
- Taxing coal and natural gas electric plants to "fight global Warming" and thereby raising electric rates sky high
- Filling the federal courts with leftwing judges who will ensure that the above policies are enforced through the legal system
- Start us down the path of Nationalized Healthcare
Just like we have seen, this type of "revolution" is hard to undo since having a filibuster-proof majority in Congress is a rare occurrence and even when you have a solid majority, Republicans tend to get timid.
The problem gets even tougher when so many Republican leaders want to take the party further into liberalism in the twisted idea that if they look more like Democrats, they'll win more votes. They claim that the party has to become more "inclusive", they need to reach out to specific groups including minorities, gays, soccer moms, illegal immigrants, Wal-Mart shoppers, etc. They claim that we need to get on board the global warming train even though the facts show that it is a myth.
This idea is nonsense. Just a quick look at the last two elections will show how ridiculous this idea would be. By the time his 8 years in office are done, George W Bush will leave the White House with one of the lowest approval ratings in history. His brand of liberalism, hidden behind the title of "Compassionate Conservatism", has put the country in the depths of a very severe downturn, allowing the first Socialist president in history to get elected with a strong majority in the Congress. After the Republicans gained a greater majority in 2004, they failed to make the current tax rates permanent and increased spending to levels that would make the most liberal Democrat proud. So how'd they do in the 2006 election? The real conservatives stayed home and given the choice between liberal Republicans and left-wing Democrats, liberals chose Democrats.
This year, with the help of "open primaries" where Democrats were allowed to cross over and vote, the Republicans chose the most liberal, "Democrat-lite" candidate they've ever had. The only reason that the election was so close was that people like me voted against Obama, a McCain Presidency just scared me less.
If you actually look at the results, you will see that in most cases, it was the more conservative Republican Candidates, who actually "saved their seats".
So the idea of becoming more liberal, will doom the party to second class status for decades. So how does the Republican Party, win back the love of the Country? Here is my suggestion.
#1, Drop the term "conservative". Thanks to the main-stream media, the term has morphed into so many different definitions that can be attacked from so many angles, that it no longer is a concept that Americans can rally around.
#2, Replace the conservative with Constitution. If you become the "Party of the Constitution", you eliminate many objections and attacks (who can attack the Constitution convincingly) as well as create a clear, definable difference with Democrat policies. You become the party that defends Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of individual achievement and prosperity. You become the all-inclusive party because you believe that "All are Created Equal". You become the party of small federal government, by encouraging the Concept of States' Rights, pushing government costs as close to the end user as possible and not blocking the right of any state to grow there economy because some special interest group in a state across the country opposes it.
#3, Start the education process now. Republicans need an organized effort at the grass root level. Recruit teachers, professors and local government candidates to start espousing the virtues of the Constitution. Recruit "Constitutional Activists", and like-minded lawyers to start going after local governments that always threaten loss of essential services like police and fire fighters when faced with a tax revolt as well as school boards who always look to cut sports and valuable education services when a millage vote is on the ballot. Find candidates that preach the message that government works for the people and not the other way around. Point out the absurdity that anyone should have to take these threats from an elected official.
The future of the country is at stake, one only needs to look at Western Europe to see how bad things can get under institutionalized socialism. Trying to out-liberal a socialist to try to win votes is a ridiculous notion, conservatives will walk away and liberals will always vote Democrat. It is only through embracing the Constitution and articulating the benefits for all in a way that the average voter can understand, will we finally get this country on the track that made it the envy of the world for so many years.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The “Bailout Clause” of the U.S. Constitution
From:
Whiskey & Gunpowder
November 19, 2008
By Byron W. King
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
I was looking through my pocket-copy of the U.S. Constitution for the “Bailout Clause.” I must have missed it. If any readers out there can find the Bailout Clause, please send me a note and let me know where it is.
There is, however, a “Bankruptcy Clause” in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). I’ve written before about bankruptcy in Whiskey & Gunpowder. See “National Bankruptcy,” and “A Suggestion of Bankruptcy,” Part I and Part II.
The key point is that the framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically anticipated that the nation would encounter economic troubles from time to time. So they gave Congress the power to enact bankruptcy laws, as opposed to “bailout” laws. And throughout U.S. history, the various economic “Panics” — which occurred every couple of decades — always led to one direction or another in the evolution of state and federal bankruptcy laws. Hey, bankruptcy works. (Full disclosure — I used to practice bankruptcy law.)
At some times in U.S. history, the bankruptcy laws favored the creditor class. During other times, the bankruptcy laws favored debtors. The point is that the economic hardships were eventually manifested in bankruptcy proceedings.
Just as all rivers flow to the sea, bad debt must find its way to discharge. So bankruptcy court was where judges and attorneys and other financial experts (like accountants and actuaries) could deal with each case on the merits. The problems could come to some sort of resolution. Some people came out OK. Other people lost everything. But capital flowed from weak hands to strong hands, and the economy moved along.
Why Not Bankruptcy Process?
But not today. Indeed, according to the New York Times many law firms — including firms that focus on bankruptcy work — are actually scaling back and laying off staff. Why is that? Why are the politicians so eager to avoid seeing companies go into bankruptcy? The government is trying to solve the problems of gargantuan levels of debt — along with chronic insolvency and illiquidity within the economy — without resorting to the constitutional-based legal mechanisms and tools that have served the nation well for over 200 years.
Consider the problems of derivatives. Few understand them. Many so-called derivative “contracts” are little more than mathematical formulae based on a series of futuristic occurrences that are entirely speculative. Their initial value in the best of times was entirely somebody’s guess. So is it any surprise that it is all but impossible to place a value on such things during the throes of a recession? Yet derivatives are some of the “troubled assets” that the Treasury is attempting to bail out. This is ridiculous!
Why is the Treasury allowing even one dollar of taxpayer money to get near a derivative? Why not use the bankruptcy process in this kind of situation? The companies that hold unsalable derivatives should have to go into a Chapter 11 proceeding and let a bankruptcy court sort it out. If the derivatives have value, let someone say so — under oath — in front of a federal judge. If the derivatives are worthless, let the judges do what we pay them to do — void the instruments and allocate the losses.
Sure, bankruptcy cases take time to roll through the courts. But could Chapter 11 bankruptcy be any worse than the current drip-drip-drip, hemorrhage of funds into the black hole of the likes of AIG? And at least some bankruptcy judge might just put a stop to the AIG exploits of taking nice vacations to exotic resort locales.
Or what about the U.S. automobile industry? Now the domestic carmakers want some of that TARP money too. Or else what? They’ll have to file for Chapter 11? Yeah? And then?
Well on the day that the automakers file for bankruptcy, the automobile factories will still be there. The patents and designs aren’t going anywhere. The workers and design teams will stick around for a while — it’s not like there are a whole lot of other jobs out there, except maybe raking leaves in leafy suburbs.
It seems to me that General Motors, Ford or Chrysler — without the legacy costs of pensions and health care and featherbed contracts for non-working union members — would actually be a decent investment for a Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) form of financing. Any DIP-lender worth its salt would certainly go into the management suites to take names, kick ass and get rid of the deadwood. And over the long term, if U.S. automakers actually paid more for steel than they have to pay for retiree health care, then we might actually see a revival of that industry.
Meanwhile, We’re Losing Time
Meanwhile, we are losing time. “Ask me for anything,” said Napoleon to his lieutenant. “Anything but time.”
What Napoleon was saying to his subordinate was that in the context of war, there are always setbacks. Terrain, for example, is sometimes captured and lost to the enemy. But lost terrain can be regained. And troops are lost in combat, but the armed forces can be rebuilt and reconstituted from the strategic reserve. Lost time, however? Once it has passed, time is gone forever. You will never get it back, and no general — however great — can win it back on any field of battle.
It is the same thing with the declining U.S. and world economy. The world’s central bankers and treasury ministers dither, and squander capital into bottomless pits of a deflationary recession.
But the great villain in all of this is debt, pure and simple. And much debt is just a collection of bizarre debt instruments, exotic forms of speculative contracts, and obligations so massive that they will never be repaid. So why prolong the agony? Liquidate it now. Let the bankruptcy courts do what the framers intended.
Whiskey & Gunpowder
November 19, 2008
By Byron W. King
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
I was looking through my pocket-copy of the U.S. Constitution for the “Bailout Clause.” I must have missed it. If any readers out there can find the Bailout Clause, please send me a note and let me know where it is.
There is, however, a “Bankruptcy Clause” in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). I’ve written before about bankruptcy in Whiskey & Gunpowder. See “National Bankruptcy,” and “A Suggestion of Bankruptcy,” Part I and Part II.
The key point is that the framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically anticipated that the nation would encounter economic troubles from time to time. So they gave Congress the power to enact bankruptcy laws, as opposed to “bailout” laws. And throughout U.S. history, the various economic “Panics” — which occurred every couple of decades — always led to one direction or another in the evolution of state and federal bankruptcy laws. Hey, bankruptcy works. (Full disclosure — I used to practice bankruptcy law.)
At some times in U.S. history, the bankruptcy laws favored the creditor class. During other times, the bankruptcy laws favored debtors. The point is that the economic hardships were eventually manifested in bankruptcy proceedings.
Just as all rivers flow to the sea, bad debt must find its way to discharge. So bankruptcy court was where judges and attorneys and other financial experts (like accountants and actuaries) could deal with each case on the merits. The problems could come to some sort of resolution. Some people came out OK. Other people lost everything. But capital flowed from weak hands to strong hands, and the economy moved along.
Why Not Bankruptcy Process?
But not today. Indeed, according to the New York Times many law firms — including firms that focus on bankruptcy work — are actually scaling back and laying off staff. Why is that? Why are the politicians so eager to avoid seeing companies go into bankruptcy? The government is trying to solve the problems of gargantuan levels of debt — along with chronic insolvency and illiquidity within the economy — without resorting to the constitutional-based legal mechanisms and tools that have served the nation well for over 200 years.
Consider the problems of derivatives. Few understand them. Many so-called derivative “contracts” are little more than mathematical formulae based on a series of futuristic occurrences that are entirely speculative. Their initial value in the best of times was entirely somebody’s guess. So is it any surprise that it is all but impossible to place a value on such things during the throes of a recession? Yet derivatives are some of the “troubled assets” that the Treasury is attempting to bail out. This is ridiculous!
Why is the Treasury allowing even one dollar of taxpayer money to get near a derivative? Why not use the bankruptcy process in this kind of situation? The companies that hold unsalable derivatives should have to go into a Chapter 11 proceeding and let a bankruptcy court sort it out. If the derivatives have value, let someone say so — under oath — in front of a federal judge. If the derivatives are worthless, let the judges do what we pay them to do — void the instruments and allocate the losses.
Sure, bankruptcy cases take time to roll through the courts. But could Chapter 11 bankruptcy be any worse than the current drip-drip-drip, hemorrhage of funds into the black hole of the likes of AIG? And at least some bankruptcy judge might just put a stop to the AIG exploits of taking nice vacations to exotic resort locales.
Or what about the U.S. automobile industry? Now the domestic carmakers want some of that TARP money too. Or else what? They’ll have to file for Chapter 11? Yeah? And then?
Well on the day that the automakers file for bankruptcy, the automobile factories will still be there. The patents and designs aren’t going anywhere. The workers and design teams will stick around for a while — it’s not like there are a whole lot of other jobs out there, except maybe raking leaves in leafy suburbs.
It seems to me that General Motors, Ford or Chrysler — without the legacy costs of pensions and health care and featherbed contracts for non-working union members — would actually be a decent investment for a Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) form of financing. Any DIP-lender worth its salt would certainly go into the management suites to take names, kick ass and get rid of the deadwood. And over the long term, if U.S. automakers actually paid more for steel than they have to pay for retiree health care, then we might actually see a revival of that industry.
Meanwhile, We’re Losing Time
Meanwhile, we are losing time. “Ask me for anything,” said Napoleon to his lieutenant. “Anything but time.”
What Napoleon was saying to his subordinate was that in the context of war, there are always setbacks. Terrain, for example, is sometimes captured and lost to the enemy. But lost terrain can be regained. And troops are lost in combat, but the armed forces can be rebuilt and reconstituted from the strategic reserve. Lost time, however? Once it has passed, time is gone forever. You will never get it back, and no general — however great — can win it back on any field of battle.
It is the same thing with the declining U.S. and world economy. The world’s central bankers and treasury ministers dither, and squander capital into bottomless pits of a deflationary recession.
But the great villain in all of this is debt, pure and simple. And much debt is just a collection of bizarre debt instruments, exotic forms of speculative contracts, and obligations so massive that they will never be repaid. So why prolong the agony? Liquidate it now. Let the bankruptcy courts do what the framers intended.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
OK, Now I think You're Stupid........
The "Taker's" are now in charge and the "Maker's" are now the target. They have no interest in learning how to fish, they want your fish, and the government will now ensure that you give them your fish....or else!
In 2005, Hermann Cain wrote the book "They Think You're Stupid: Why Democrats Lost Your Vote and What Republicans Must Do to Keep It" (the Republicans didn't listen)and after the 2006 elections, I wrote a blog arguing that maybe they are right.
Agreed, the Republican party spent the previous 6 years lurching toward "liberalism light", but the idea that putting sworn enemies of American business and industry like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank in charge of the Congress still made no sense.
The financial meltdown that occurred this year, is a direct result of the policies instituted by liberals and protected by the Democrat-led Congress.
So what did we do? We elected more of them!
With the majorities they now have in the Congress and the election of Obama as President, the most left-wing, America-hating politicians in the country will be able to do whatever they want to us.
And speaking of Obama, here's what I wonder.....
If you voted for him, who did you vote for?
Did you vote for the clean, articulate, "white-sounding", Presidential-looking candidate; or did you vote for.....
The man who admits in his book that he created his circle of friends with the most radical and marxist student activists and Professors he could find?
The man who lied about his tax cut policy which is nothing more than a welfare payment? No where in his plan does he cut tax rates...for anyone and in 2010, all rates go UP to the Clinton administration rates, doubling the tax on the middle class he professes to want to help.
The man who prevented an Illinois vote that would have protected infants who survive abortion procedures?
The man who opposes drilling for our own energy supplies?
The man who wants every business in America unionized....can anybody say "Hello GM!"?
The man who admitted in an interview that energy prices, including energy for home heating and cooling would sky-rocket after he implements his "Cap and Trade" policy to save us from a Climate Change scientific theory that has more holes blown in it every day?
The man who never held a real job, failed in his endeavor to improve even a small portion of the Chicago school system and spent 145 days in Washington DC doing nothing but preparing for a presidential run?
If imagery is the recipe for political success, then the republic is doomed. Do the math, how many of us can afford to take care of our own family's needs AND take care of the needs of our neighbor's? It doesn't work, it hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried and yet, here we go.........
and there's nothing we can do for at least 2 years.
In 2005, Hermann Cain wrote the book "They Think You're Stupid: Why Democrats Lost Your Vote and What Republicans Must Do to Keep It" (the Republicans didn't listen)and after the 2006 elections, I wrote a blog arguing that maybe they are right.
Agreed, the Republican party spent the previous 6 years lurching toward "liberalism light", but the idea that putting sworn enemies of American business and industry like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank in charge of the Congress still made no sense.
The financial meltdown that occurred this year, is a direct result of the policies instituted by liberals and protected by the Democrat-led Congress.
So what did we do? We elected more of them!
With the majorities they now have in the Congress and the election of Obama as President, the most left-wing, America-hating politicians in the country will be able to do whatever they want to us.
And speaking of Obama, here's what I wonder.....
If you voted for him, who did you vote for?
Did you vote for the clean, articulate, "white-sounding", Presidential-looking candidate; or did you vote for.....
The man who admits in his book that he created his circle of friends with the most radical and marxist student activists and Professors he could find?
The man who lied about his tax cut policy which is nothing more than a welfare payment? No where in his plan does he cut tax rates...for anyone and in 2010, all rates go UP to the Clinton administration rates, doubling the tax on the middle class he professes to want to help.
The man who prevented an Illinois vote that would have protected infants who survive abortion procedures?
The man who opposes drilling for our own energy supplies?
The man who wants every business in America unionized....can anybody say "Hello GM!"?
The man who admitted in an interview that energy prices, including energy for home heating and cooling would sky-rocket after he implements his "Cap and Trade" policy to save us from a Climate Change scientific theory that has more holes blown in it every day?
The man who never held a real job, failed in his endeavor to improve even a small portion of the Chicago school system and spent 145 days in Washington DC doing nothing but preparing for a presidential run?
If imagery is the recipe for political success, then the republic is doomed. Do the math, how many of us can afford to take care of our own family's needs AND take care of the needs of our neighbor's? It doesn't work, it hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried and yet, here we go.........
and there's nothing we can do for at least 2 years.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wake Up America! There is no Obama Tax Cut Coming Your Way
I painfully went through the details of the Obama Tax Plan, what I found in the document is very different than what he's been saying, starting with the fact that the top 5% of all income earners start at $166,000, not $250,000 (all tax rates listed and statistics were found at WWW.IRS.Gov).
Bottom line, families making $64,000 (the middle class?) will see there tax rate double after Obama lets the 2003 "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy" expire.
I did my best to make the numbers clear, but I suggest you check for yourself if it really matters.
Bottom line, families making $64,000 (the middle class?) will see there tax rate double after Obama lets the 2003 "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy" expire.
I did my best to make the numbers clear, but I suggest you check for yourself if it really matters.
Wake Up America! Why the Supreme Court Matters
The Constitution is the only thing that is keeping our Republic from falling into a Democratic Dictatorship. It has been attacked by the Big-Government Elitists since the days of President John Madison.
How have liberals managed to work around the Constitution and it's framework of limited government? By using the courts.......
How have liberals managed to work around the Constitution and it's framework of limited government? By using the courts.......
Wake Up America! Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Lately Obama has played the "I'm Offended" card at being called a Socialist. The Links below give us enough evidence to question his reaction.
If one wants to rule as a socialist, why not just be honest about who you are and what you want to do so that the people can decide if they want it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohp5IX3y098
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2073071/revolution-you-can-believe-in.thtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbsihrdn-_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrGJWjLG9DY&feature=PlayList&p=F4CA741D4045BA7E&index=9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYr6jwqzEnE&feature=related
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/
If one wants to rule as a socialist, why not just be honest about who you are and what you want to do so that the people can decide if they want it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohp5IX3y098
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2073071/revolution-you-can-believe-in.thtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbsihrdn-_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrGJWjLG9DY&feature=PlayList&p=F4CA741D4045BA7E&index=9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYr6jwqzEnE&feature=related
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wake Up America! This is Not How You Create New Jobs
Obama claims to have a "bold" plan to jump start the economy and create new jobs. He wants to use tax policy to encourage job creation, but as you will see, his theories are misguided. As a member of small business for over 30 years, I can assure you that business people do not think like socialists....not the successful ones anyway.
Wake Up America! The Path to Socialized Health Care
Obama's TV ad's state that a National Health Care System is "way too extreme". But if you read through the details of his proposals, it's not hard to see that the end result will naturally be a nationalized system.
By creating a competing government insurance agency, Obama will be able to undercut the prices of any for-profit insurance provider until it no longer makes sense to stay in the business.
By creating a competing government insurance agency, Obama will be able to undercut the prices of any for-profit insurance provider until it no longer makes sense to stay in the business.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wake Up America! Government Mandated Inflation
The Democrats have long pushed for a "living wage" to make it easier for someone working behind the counter of a fast food restaurant to better care for his/her family of 4 (it's politically incorrect to instead, encourage young people to put off marriage and a family until the have acquired the skills and education necessary to avoid having to work behind the counter of a fast food restaurant).
Is it "fair" to have the government dictate what salaries and benefits the business owner must provide, most politicians never even worked in a business let alone owned one!
Moreover, what would be the consequences on our economy if such a policy is enacted. Obama's website states that this would be a high priority for him in his first term.........
Is it "fair" to have the government dictate what salaries and benefits the business owner must provide, most politicians never even worked in a business let alone owned one!
Moreover, what would be the consequences on our economy if such a policy is enacted. Obama's website states that this would be a high priority for him in his first term.........
Wake Up America! The Myth of "Taxing the Wealthy"
Has anybody ever asked the question, "If the Democrats are always trying to tax the wealthy, then why are so many wealthy people Democrats?"
This video exposes the myth that has been perpetuated for at least as long as I have been alive. The income tax is not designed to "punish" the wealthy, it is designed to keep as many of us as possible from becoming wealthy. The only way you would get the wealthy to pay their "fair share" would be through a national consumption tax (which I favor as a replacement of the income tax system) or the creation of a wealth tax like that of some European Countries (yes, there are some Socialists who are honorable in their endeavor to create "fairness").
Remember, wealth creates independence and an independent electorate is what Socialist politicians most fear.........
In the video I take a swipe at Warren Buffet. Although I do consider Warren to be a brilliant investor, I personally think that he's a slime ball. Time and time again he allows himself to be trotted out by the Democrats to proclaim that he would not oppose a higher "income" tax. Watch the video and find out why.
This video exposes the myth that has been perpetuated for at least as long as I have been alive. The income tax is not designed to "punish" the wealthy, it is designed to keep as many of us as possible from becoming wealthy. The only way you would get the wealthy to pay their "fair share" would be through a national consumption tax (which I favor as a replacement of the income tax system) or the creation of a wealth tax like that of some European Countries (yes, there are some Socialists who are honorable in their endeavor to create "fairness").
Remember, wealth creates independence and an independent electorate is what Socialist politicians most fear.........
In the video I take a swipe at Warren Buffet. Although I do consider Warren to be a brilliant investor, I personally think that he's a slime ball. Time and time again he allows himself to be trotted out by the Democrats to proclaim that he would not oppose a higher "income" tax. Watch the video and find out why.
Wake Up America! Socialism is not the Answer!
I've tried very hard to turn my back on politics this past year as the idiocracy of the two year campaign cycle tends to do nothing but put me in a bad mood. But I cannot just sit back quietly and watch the country that I love fall into the abyss of authoritarian socialistic rule.
Everyone wants change, I want change, but the change I seek is that of the government, not the country. The catalyst for the Revolutionary War was a rejection of an authoritarian government (the King of England), and it's oppressive tax policies.
The idea that the Democrat Party and their overt socialist rhetoric are even in the running to win anything, let alone gaining a super majority is enough to cause any Constitution-loving American to lie awake at night wondering where he can move his family to escape all this.
Whether the voters are leaning toward the Democrats due to emotion, or ignorance of the founding principles of this country, something has to be done to try to make these people understand what they are really signing up for.
After going to the websites of both candidates, I have put together a series of videos intended to give you a perspective of what their policies could mean for the future of the country.
I have a young daughter and I fear for her future in a society that punishes ambition and hard work and seeks to keep her in the same class she was born into.
The first video is a bit lengthly as it introduces my reasons for going through this effort. I tried to keep the rest of them to the shorter and to the point. The quality of both the production and presentation are on par with a non-rehearsed amateur filmaker wannabe.
Will it make a difference in the upcoming election? Who knows, but at least I'm trying to do something and at very least I'll have a record of my warnings if the election goes the way of the socialists.
Everyone wants change, I want change, but the change I seek is that of the government, not the country. The catalyst for the Revolutionary War was a rejection of an authoritarian government (the King of England), and it's oppressive tax policies.
The idea that the Democrat Party and their overt socialist rhetoric are even in the running to win anything, let alone gaining a super majority is enough to cause any Constitution-loving American to lie awake at night wondering where he can move his family to escape all this.
Whether the voters are leaning toward the Democrats due to emotion, or ignorance of the founding principles of this country, something has to be done to try to make these people understand what they are really signing up for.
After going to the websites of both candidates, I have put together a series of videos intended to give you a perspective of what their policies could mean for the future of the country.
I have a young daughter and I fear for her future in a society that punishes ambition and hard work and seeks to keep her in the same class she was born into.
The first video is a bit lengthly as it introduces my reasons for going through this effort. I tried to keep the rest of them to the shorter and to the point. The quality of both the production and presentation are on par with a non-rehearsed amateur filmaker wannabe.
Will it make a difference in the upcoming election? Who knows, but at least I'm trying to do something and at very least I'll have a record of my warnings if the election goes the way of the socialists.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The Death of Reagan Republicanism?
Here is an excellent essay by George Will from Conservative Review:
The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion
By George Will
WASHINGTON - Like Job after losing his camels and acquir-
ing boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike
Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's
two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social
conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to
"take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with
limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending
conservatives who want to take back the nation for James
Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call
"fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda.
Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.
He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in
order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly
similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and
economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrink-
ing middle class. Well.
Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as house-
holds with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000,
says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category
than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning
more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the
percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So,"
Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came
from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing
values declined in 2007, the net worth of households
increased.
Huckabee told heavily subsidized Iowa -- Washington's
ethanol enthusiasm has farm values and incomes soaring --
that Americans striving to rise are "pushed down every
time they try by their own government." Edwards, synthetic
candidate of theatrical bitterness on behalf of America's
crushed, groaning majority, says the rich have an "iron-
fisted grip" on democracy and a "stranglehold" on the
economy. Strangely, these fists have imposed a tax code
that makes the top 1 percent of earners pay 39 percent of
all income tax revenues, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent,
and the bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent.
According to Edwards, the North Carolina of his youth
resembled Chechnya today -- "I had to fight to survive.
I mean really. Literally." Huckabee, a compound of Uriah
Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his
humble background: "In my family, 'summer' was never a
verb." Nixon, who maundered about his parents' privations
and wife's cloth coat, followed Lyndon Johnson, another
miscast president whose festering resentments and status
anxieties colored his conduct of office. Here we go again?
Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican
"establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964,
when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The
establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired
in 1966. Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa
success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that
helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a
crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics
that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should
someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?
Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world
market sets the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price
is evidence of -- surging demand in India and China? unrest
in Nigeria's oil fields? No, "corporate greed." That is
Edwards' explanation of every unpleasantness. Mitt Romney's
versatility of conviction, although it repelled Iowans, has
been a modest makeover compared to Edwards' personality
transplant. The sunny Southerner of 2004 has become the
angry paladin of the suffering multitudes, to whom he
shouts: "Treat these people the way they treat you!" Pre-
sumably he means treat "the rich" badly -- an odious
exhortation to one portion of Americans, regarding another.
Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to
change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its
toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity
of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives
behind all disagreements with them, and who therefore think
opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.
The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of
reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in
government is to reduce the role of government in distribut-
ing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role
by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging
its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth.
Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this
iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase
the power of interests whose representatives are concentrat-
ed there.
Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton
parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly
cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in
American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee --
an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an
adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against
fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this
country.
The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion
By George Will
WASHINGTON - Like Job after losing his camels and acquir-
ing boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike
Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's
two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social
conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to
"take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with
limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending
conservatives who want to take back the nation for James
Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call
"fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda.
Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.
He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in
order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly
similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and
economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrink-
ing middle class. Well.
Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as house-
holds with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000,
says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category
than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning
more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the
percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So,"
Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came
from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing
values declined in 2007, the net worth of households
increased.
Huckabee told heavily subsidized Iowa -- Washington's
ethanol enthusiasm has farm values and incomes soaring --
that Americans striving to rise are "pushed down every
time they try by their own government." Edwards, synthetic
candidate of theatrical bitterness on behalf of America's
crushed, groaning majority, says the rich have an "iron-
fisted grip" on democracy and a "stranglehold" on the
economy. Strangely, these fists have imposed a tax code
that makes the top 1 percent of earners pay 39 percent of
all income tax revenues, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent,
and the bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent.
According to Edwards, the North Carolina of his youth
resembled Chechnya today -- "I had to fight to survive.
I mean really. Literally." Huckabee, a compound of Uriah
Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his
humble background: "In my family, 'summer' was never a
verb." Nixon, who maundered about his parents' privations
and wife's cloth coat, followed Lyndon Johnson, another
miscast president whose festering resentments and status
anxieties colored his conduct of office. Here we go again?
Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican
"establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964,
when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The
establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired
in 1966. Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa
success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that
helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a
crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics
that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should
someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?
Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world
market sets the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price
is evidence of -- surging demand in India and China? unrest
in Nigeria's oil fields? No, "corporate greed." That is
Edwards' explanation of every unpleasantness. Mitt Romney's
versatility of conviction, although it repelled Iowans, has
been a modest makeover compared to Edwards' personality
transplant. The sunny Southerner of 2004 has become the
angry paladin of the suffering multitudes, to whom he
shouts: "Treat these people the way they treat you!" Pre-
sumably he means treat "the rich" badly -- an odious
exhortation to one portion of Americans, regarding another.
Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to
change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its
toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity
of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives
behind all disagreements with them, and who therefore think
opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.
The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of
reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in
government is to reduce the role of government in distribut-
ing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role
by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging
its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth.
Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this
iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase
the power of interests whose representatives are concentrat-
ed there.
Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton
parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly
cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in
American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee --
an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an
adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against
fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this
country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)