Jer's Place

Enough said?

2012-02-13T20:31:00.001-05:00

2001 128,236
2002 -157,758
2003 -377,585
2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701
2008 -458,553
Bush -2,005,615

2009 -1,412,688
2010 -1,293,489
2011 -1,299,595
2012 -1,326,948
Obama -5,332,720

Modern Slavery

2012-01-20T09:09:00.001-05:00

The Choices-a comparison

2012-01-14T09:22:00.000-05:00

The value of free enterprise has nothing to do with money or wealth

Arthur C. Brooks

There’s no doubt it’s been a rough few years for free enterprise in the United States. The financial crisis that began in 2007 is still a drag on the economy, and for every sign of recovery there’s another dark cloud on the horizon. Entrepreneurs are unsure about the future and skittish about investing their time, treasure, and talent in growing their businesses, much less starting new ones. President Obama’s stimulus package was a dud, and the unemployment rate today is 50 percent higher than what he promised would be the worst-case scenario.

It’s easy to get discouraged. But we cannot afford to be defeatist—or be defeated. Principled advocates of free enterprise have to redouble our efforts to make the case for free enterprise and confront its detractors with the truth. This means we have to explain in clear and unambiguous terms why free enterprise matters to the United States.

It might seem that the best case for free enterprise is the material one. Free enterprise lets people make more money, buy more and nicer stuff, and have a greater degree of comfort. The freer our economy is, the more competitive the US economy is vis-à-vis the rest of the world. And so on.

But these aren’t our best arguments. There is another reason, a transcendent reason, for which free enterprise matters most—and this is the case we all must be able to make today.

We all learned early on in school that the Declaration of Independence claimed for each of us the unalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Note that the founders didn’t assert a right to be happy; such is the domain of tinpots and crackpots, of 1984’s “Ministry of Plenty” and Josef Stalin’s aggrandizing self-description as the Soviet Union’s “Constructor of Happiness.” So what, in practice, does this right to pursue happiness mean?

It means the right to define and earn our happiness through our ideas, hard work, and gumption, to earn our success by creating value honestly, in our own lives and in the lives of others. It doesn’t mean the pursuit of a big lottery win or an inheritance. Those bring money, but not happiness. And a mountain of evidence shows that after a fairly low threshold, more money doesn’t make us happier. The best case for free enterprise has nothing at all to do with money or material goods or wealth. Those are just icing on the cake. We must stop talking about free enterprise as just an engine of wealth creation. It’s much more than that.

In short, the secret to the pursuit of happiness is earning our own success; creating value with our lives and in the lives of others. This earned success is the fruit of hard work and just rewards in a system built on merit. Only in a free enterprise system is effort and innovation rewarded over connections and predation. (And this means that we have to draw a distinction between free enterprise, which is based on opportunity and competition between ideas, and corporate cronyism, which is just another form of statism masquerading as free enterprise.)

Of course, none of this is new to free enterprise advocates. Most of us have known our whole adult lives that an enterprise society provides the greatest freedom and opportunity for people, not just in material ways, but by allowing us to give our lives meaning and purpose. Yet we’ve shelved transcendent arguments and devoted far too much time and effort to making arguments about efficiency—arguments our opponents largely accepted (or at least stopped trying to refute) over a decade ago.

Instead, we have allowed the enemies of free enterprise—the statists, the redistributionists, the folks for whom every problem is a government program waiting to be enacted—to claim the mantle of fairness and the moral high ground for their discredited ideas. That needs to change. After all, Adam Smith wrote his Theory of Moral Sentiments two decades before The Wealth of Nations. Efficiency came after morality, not vice versa.

It is time to contest the moral high ground. In order to win the fight for free enterprise against its opponents who are once again beating the drum to turn America into some sort of Anglophone Sweden (or Greece), we have to follow Smith’s lead. We have to make the case for free enterprise and economic growth from a moral perspective, using language about opportunity and happiness and living a meaningful life. We have to explain how the pursuit of happiness requires the opportunity to earn our success, and how earned success comes only when we succeed on our own terms.
The statists preach a crass, shallow gospel of materialism. We cannot defeat them by merely responding with claims about economic efficiency. We can win the battle for free enterprise in the United States. But we have to say what is written on our hearts, not just on our bank statements.

How's That Government Meddling Workin' Out for Ya'?

By Richard N. Weltz

Back in the heyday of the old Soviet Union an agricultural commissar from the Ukraine was summoned to the Agricultural Ministry in Moscow to report on the year's potato crop. "Ah, Comrade Minister," said the commissar, beaming, "If all the potatoes harvested this year were put into a single pile, it would reach to the feet of God."

"What!" exclaimed the minister, "you know that in Communism there is no God."

"Also," sighed the commissar, "in the Ukraine is no potatoes."

There was more truth than fiction to this old saw; and we remember the "good old days" of the USSR with complete government rule over production, 5-year plan after 5-year plan, and nothing but empty shelves, long lines just to buy bread, and tinny little cars for the few who could buy even that.

And we congratulated ourselves that in the good old U S of A, we were smart enough to allow market forces to bring abundance and luxury into every grocery, department store, or auto showroom. Shortages, certainly, were little known with respect to anything Americans needed or wanted. That may not be so true a whole lot longer, if Obama and his leftist-thinking ideologues continue to have their way.

Consider the following:

Drugs needed to treat for ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) are in seriously short supply, as reported by the New York Times. It seems that the DEA worries that too much production might lead to theft, so it sets quotas on how much of the relevant drugs the pharmaceutical industry may produce each year. In its bureaucratic wisdom, this has caused severe shortages of the drugs for people, especially children, who badly need them.

There's no shortage, however, of alternative-fueled cars; there's a glut thanks to government meddling. The recent automobile show in Detroit displayed a panoply of plug-in and hybrid vehicles that few, if any, buyers want. Reported Nick Bunkley:

Automakers are flooding the Detroit auto show with new hybrid and plug-in models, but the combination of gas prices below $4 a gallon and higher upfront costs for the cars is not attracting consumers.

Regardless, the automakers have little choice but to develop and try to push more hybrids as they prepare for fuel-efficiency requirements that call for significant increases later this decade.

But there is a huge shortage of a mandated fuel additive. The feds may be levying up to $6.8 million in fines on oil companies who fail to blend into their gasoline and diesel fuels cellulosic biofuel, which is not available commercially, but which government planners demand refiners to blend in.

On the other hand, the DoT's "Cash for Clunkers" program did create a shortage of affordable used cars because the rules set up by the planners mandated that, while the cars turned in had to be in drivable condition, they could not be resold on the secondhand market, but had to be completely scrapped. Unintended consequences of government meddling struck again.

Incandescent light bulbs aren't in such short supply yet - but they soon will be. In its infinite wisdom, Congress decided to set standards for light bulbs that could not be met by the kinds based on the original Edison design and still widely in use throughout the nation. Beginning January 2012, the 100-watt size was to be effectively banned, to be followed in subsequent years by bulbs of other wattages.

Yes, a last-minute bit of legislation withholds funding for enforcement of the ban; but it's too late to do any good. Manufacturers have already shut down production and moved jobs offshore to Asia, where the expensive substitute CFLs are made. Says ABC News:

But what many Republicans are celebrating as a win for individuals' light-bulb-choosing freedom will probably not save the energy-guzzling bulbs from disappearing off store shelves.

"The industry has moved on," said Larry Lauck, a spokesman for the American Lighting Association.

Lauck said U.S. light bulb manufacturers have already "retooled" their production lines to build more efficient bulbs, he said.

Sometimes bureaucratic interference doesn't create an actual shortage of something but simply drives its price sky high over what once were free-market levels. Take the recent case of colchicine, as explained by Slate.com:

A drug called colchicine is all that keeps some 2 million American gout patients from suffering debilitating pain in their toes, elbows, wrists, and fingers. Doctors have prescribed the compound, derived from the seeds of the autumn crocus, for centuries.

But patients who take colchicine woke up with a new symptom recently: a giant pain in the wallet. Until January, colchicine was sold by many companies and cost as little as 10 cents a pill. Now it's available only under the trade name Colcrys, sold by a Philadelphia company called URL Pharma -- for five dollars per pill.

It seems that, although the drug was originally approved in 1974 and had no history of problems, somebody (you get three guesses who) with access to political ears persuaded the FDA to revoke all licenses for its manufacture and require producers to go anew through an approval and licensing procedure. At the normal market price of a dime a pill, it's small wonder that only one company bothered to do so and now can charge any price it pleases.

These are, of course, only a few examples of the egregious way in which the government began in January 2009 to control ever more of the American economy - banking, finance, autos, energy production, and whatever else some élitist types believed they know better how to do than Americans can do for themselves in a free market economy.

The Obama DOJ even tried to take away a church or synagogue's right to hire and fire its own spiritual leaders and religious teachers -- stopped only by the unanimous Supreme Court decision earlier this week "exempting" religious organizations from the burden of the pervasive employment rules that govern secular enterprises.

Speaking of employment, though, PepsiCo's largest bottling unit is being forced by the EEOC to pay a whopping $3 million-plus fine and offer jobs and training to blacks, against whom the government says Pepsi discriminated by choosing not to hire applicants who didn't pass the company's criminal background check.

Shortages, pricing screw-ups, unintended adverse consequences, micromanagement of citizens' private lives - the Soviets did all that; the Chinese as well; and the North Koreans and Cubans are still at it, all to ill effect. Never before in our nation's history have we moved so quickly and so unthinkingly down this dangerous path. Look around, and keep this in mind when you cast your votes in 2012.

Occupy History

2011-12-02T21:53:00.002-05:00

Most people are familiar with the famous quote by the philosopher George Santanya “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” but I have learned that those who do not know history often do not have a clue as to why the world they live in is the way it is. People without an historical context just as those without a moral foundation tend to be susceptible to manipulation by those who seek followers for their agendas.

This is why I have a strong belief in the Tea Party Movement, despite vast differences in personalities, demographics, age etc the Tea Party has one abiding belief that the entire movement supports and agrees upon, the Constitution as the foundation for our nations greatness. Tea Party members not only have a better grasp of how our government is supposed to work than the average citizen, they have a greater knowledge of our nations history than most Americans.

Not so the Progressives, those progressives that are not actively distorting our history have for the most part no historical context upon which to establish their belief structure. This is true even of the history of their own movement. Most modern progressives have not a clue as to the history of their own beliefs. They tend to blindly follow whatever their opinion makers cook up for their digestion.

The initial Progressive Era which began near the end of the nineteenth century and was ended with an overwhelming rejection by the American public in 1920 was in fact a time of many reforms. Some of these were good and necessary reforms such as child labor laws but many if not most were fraught with unintended consequences and some were the product of outright immorality such as Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics Movement to rid society of the "less desirable". Of course they Progressive proponents did not see it for the evil that it was, it was just another in a long line of progressive schemes to improve humanity at least as they deemed it should be improved.

The lack of knowledge about the foundation of their movement is the reason that progressives are so malleable and prone to be used. As an example of how uninformed the progressive movement is on history one needs take only one issue that the Occupy Movement, a progressive formed group is up in arms about, the Federal Reserve and the collusion between the government and banks. Of course the progressive narrative is that banks control government for their own greedy purposes a Cheered on by progressive politicians the Occupy Wall Street Movement succeeded in occupying the parks of our nation's cities and basically making childish pest of themselves.

But why is their such collusion between our financial institutions and our Federal Government? Why in deed do we have such a thing as a Federal Reserve System? Although I seldom like to use Wikipedia especially when it comes to historical information because often it has been edited towards a progressive view of history, in this case I found it to be both extremely accurate and descriptive.

Under the Progressive Era regarding progressive reforms they inform us:

When Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected President with a Democratic Congress in 1912 he implemented a series of progressive policies in economics. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, and a small income tax was imposed on high incomes. The Democrats lowered tariffs with the Underwood Tariff in 1913, though its effects were overwhelmed by the changes in trade cause by the World War that broke out in 1914. Wilson proved especially effective in mobilizing public opinion behind tariff changes by denouncing corporate lobbyists, addressing Congress in person in highly dramatic fashion, and staging an elaborate ceremony when he signed the bill into law.[54] Wilson helped end the long battles over the trusts with the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. He managed to convince lawmakers on the issues of money and banking by the creation in 1913 of the Federal Reserve System, a complex business-government partnership that to this day dominates the financial world.[55] (emphasis added)

I wonder how many Americans realize that there were no income taxes prior to the intervention of the progressives in 1913. Or that it was sold to the trusting public as a "a small income tax... imposed on high incomes" You know the rich people who would pay for all the new goodies that were to be given to the "masses", Sound familiar? But I digress.

So while our Occupiers are out demonstrating against Wall Street they are in fact protesting against the policies given to them, and us, by their founding fathers egged on by Progressive politicians of this generation. To anyone who knows the history of Progressives in American politics this is not shocking at all. The one thing Progressives are very good at doing is creating a mess (with the best of intentions) then turning it around and blaming the failures which their ill conceived policies unleash on the nation on others.

Consider that statement from Wikipedia "a complex business-government partnership that to this day dominates the financial world" would that not be the very definition of crony capitalism? And if this model is used throughout a nations economy such as energy, manufacturing and oh let's throw in health care wouldn't that be the very definition of Fascism?

Knowing that the progressives themselves, fined tuned over the past century , are responsible for this "complex business-government partnership" you would think they would show a little humility and remorse for the devastating affects they have wrought on America, but the fact is that most progressives have not a clue as to the true history of their movement “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” They are in fact the very definition of "useful idiots"

Note too that despite convenient Progressive political narrative it was not the buisness interests that were responsible for this collusion, it was the government itself which forced these so called "complex" reforms on business. If indeed business and government create an alliance which screws the "little people" it is always government that is the dominant partner in the relationship. Lobbyist may influence government but only because government has set the table in order to feed themselves. Since politicians depend on the structures of government for their power it is in their best interest to sell the public on the idea that nefarious entities are always striving to corrupt the system, the system which they control. Corporations play the whipping boy since they are in fact slaves to the dictates of Big Government and more and more due to regulations and subsidies are beholding to government for their existence and profitability. The "useful idiots" of the progressive movement are unleashed on one "Big Business" or another in order to distract blame from its true source "Big Government".

So it is not surprising when you come across an article like this from US NEWS with the appropriate title of "The Federal Reserve, Now Bailing Out Politicians" well why not after all the progressives created "a complex business-government partnership that to this day dominates the financial world" Why shouldn't the Federal Reserve bailout its parent?

From the article (emphasis added)

The bank bailouts in 2008 and 2009 stabilized the U.S. financial system, but they also added to the "moral hazard" that contributed to the problem in the first place. By making it clear that the government wouldn't let big banks fail, the bailouts signaled that bankers can get away with risky moves, since the feds will always provide a safety net. The Federal Reserve and its compatriots in Europe and Japan are now basically creating political moral hazard, by letting elected officials know that if they can't get the job done, the central banks will step in to prevent a full-blown disaster. It's an invitation to further recklessness that politicians don't need.

So the Federal Reserve is protecting politicians from their own irresponsibility. The article goes on to show how this is all unfolding and the term "moral hazard" is a common theme. Progressive solutions seem always to lead to this conclusion "moral hazards" simply because they tend always to seek paths which ignore moral foundations. But as the article concludes a day of reckoning is near.

The Fed is running out of tricks, however. And besides, it's not the Fed's job to oversee the government's spending, taxing and borrowing. That's up to Congress and the president.

The Fed and its equivalent in other countries can delay some of the pain—for awhile—but eventually, politicians will need to do the job they were elected to do. Giving them an excuse to do nothing, until there's no other choice, could make the job that much harder when they finally get around to it.

So while the the progressive Occupy Movement is out demonstrating against financial institutions, the true fault lies with the politicians which perpetuate a system that was created by the progressive's own founding fathers. A system which is leading to an economic Armageddon which generations of Progressive politicians have inflicted on American society.

But have no fear the Progressives are nothing if not manipulative, they will find a boogeyman to distract the attention of the masses away from the blame they so richly deserve.

Conception to birth -- visualized

2011-11-25T16:55:00.003-05:00

INSTITUTIONALIZE

2011-11-13T20:52:00.003-05:00

Definition of INSTITUTIONALIZE

transitive verb
1: to make into an institution : give character of an institution to ; especially : to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system

2: to put in the care of an institution

Currently there is a battle within the Republican Party which is most often described as the "grassroots" versus the "establishment". The establishment segment of the party which is comprised mostly of the elected officials locally and in Washington though by no means all as well as the Republican National and State Committees. The grass roots is now primarily led by the many assorted groups known as the Tea Party but has always had other entities which have fought within the Republican Party in an attempt to retain certain principles that are important to them, primarily centered around limited government.

It is inronic that "establishment" Republicans claim to hold the same principles and the parties very foundation is built upon the principles that the "grass root" movements espouse. Despite this seemingly joint purpose, the Republican "establishment" is constantly violating or diluting the very principles upon which it was founded, why?

Actually the reason is neither all that complicated or unique. The reason that the Republican Party establishment seems always to be at cross purposes to its very foundational principles is simply that it is an institution. Republicanism is not an institution but the party apparatus is. Once a movement, a cause, a set of principles, or any purpose oriented entity becomes an institution then the focus begins to shift from the ideals and purposes which motivated the formation of the organization to the preservation of the institution, even to the point of sacrificing the very ideals and principles which were the seeds of its birth.

An institution takes on a life of its own, very often loosing sight entirely of its stated purpose. A large segment of the scientific community has lost sight of science altogether in order to maintain the influence of its institutions. Colleges have ceased to be focused on learning and instead have become pathological entities concerned primarily with their own obese growth.

The past week has shown the sickness of institutional narcissism. At Penn State by all rights one of America's preeminent academic establishments, in order to defend institutional integrity, its defenders failed the most basic of moral tenants, to defend the innocent. With the exception of the monster that allegedly committed the crimes, the other parties involved lost their moral compass not born of evil impulses but rather from an out of kilter need to protect their institution. The institution was more important than basic moral principles that human beings depend on for a civil society.

Like members of The Borg of Star Trek lore, when the hive (institution) is faced with threats, real or imagined, the members of the Borg will myopically focus on destroying the threat. The fact that the threat may actually represent the very principles that the institution is meant to represent as in the case of the Republican Party, or defending against the threat violates basic moral principles as in the case of Penn State is not even in the consciousness of those who have been institutionalized.

This institutionalization of the human mind and spirit is a sight to behold and to fear. It is the very definition of the "collective" mind warp upon which statist philosophies such as socialism and communism thrive. It is born out of the natural human desire to "belong" and "be a part of" but unless tempered with individualism and morality can and does lead people to totally loose sight of the "big picture".

The irony is that the institutionalized mind sees the Big Picture as sacrificing smaller things for the larger goals of the institution. Basic first principles can be ignored in order to win elections because unless we can win elections we will never be able to implement policies which are the fruit of our principles. This reasoning which sounds "pragmatic" is in reality no more than a deal with the devil. This "pragmatism" is the same institutionalized thinking that allows otherwise honorable and decent men to ignore the rape of the innocent for the "greater good" of the well being of the institution.

Though the comparison may seem harsh the mind set that goes into the process is the same and ultimately leads to the same result, the destruction of the ideal on the alter of institutional collectivism.

It was defined much simpler many years ago when He explained "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

And what does it profit an institution to attain power by selling its core principles.

Jobs

2011-10-28T09:01:00.001-04:00

The picture above is from the memorial service for Steve Jobs at Apple's corporate headquarters last week. I would guess that most of the employees at Apple's headquarters attended the service and in addition all the Apple retail stores around the world closed during the memorial so that those employees could watch as well. Quite a crowd for a millionaire or billionaire, huh?

This post, despite the title and picture, is not a really about Steve Jobs, it is however about the 60,400 people who work for Apple and an additional 2,900 full-time equivalent temporary employees and contractors all of which would not have been possible without the creative genius of Steve Jobs. Look at that picture. Think of the spouses, children and others who benefit as the result of these people having jobs. Think of all the money that these people spend in their neighborhoods which create even more employment opportunities for others. The sixty thousand plus employee base of Apple creates literally billions of dollars of economic activity around the world and this does not even include all the subcontractors, service contractors, suppliers and other industries and services that have sprung up around the Apple business empire.

To give you an idea how vast an impact this one company has on society consider this, In the past year Apple spent over 82 billion dollars to produce and sell their products, that is not their profit that is what they spent, All that money went to employees, contractors, suppliers, vendors and a host of other entities all of whom employ people and like Apple and it's employees pay taxes in one form or another at one level or another which help pay for everything from teachers to congressman and even presidents.

This economic activity creates an ever expanding economic growth which touches millions of people who are probably are not even aware that in some small or large way they are benefiting from the entrepreneurial skills of a single man, A college drop out who with his friend had an idea and a vision which transformed the world and expanded the pie of economic well being in the world.

Now consider this picture:

Really ? Did Steve Jobs become rich by exploiting the poor ? Or did Steve Jobs create opportunities for hundred of thousands indeed millions of people around the world. Putting aside the tremendous far reaching technological revolution that people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others have ushered in, their contribution to the expansion of wealth at every level of society is incalculable. The entrepreneurial seed which industrious and innovative people sow and nurture into grand enterprises are not the cause of human degradation but on the contrary it is the source for the uplifting and positive evolution of the human experience. Step by glorious step the market place of ideas, innovation and inspiration has taken mankind from the caves of prehistory to the moon and into limitless possibilities of cyber space and Steve Jobs or John D Rockefeller were as much a part of that journey as Plato or Jefferson.

The basic understanding of what we call the "hidden hand" of the market which expands the pie from which we all benefit is what separates free market proponents from those bent on creating statist and socialist style, "top down" societies. Those of a statist mind set believe in a static world where the pie is constant and if one person has a larger share then others must have their share diminished. But the world is not static, it is a dynamic world we live in, which grows with the constant expansion of human insight and innovation. The proof of this is so obvious as to be the very definition of "common" sense.

We can prove there is an expanding dynamic economy very simply, consider this. At the time that the United States came into being the population of this nation was 3.9 million people, today there is nearly ten times as many people. Not only has the nations economy been able to keep up with this population growth, the standard of living for Americans has grown nearly twenty two fold. In other words not only has our economy been able to keep up with population growth, the dynamic ever expanding free market economy has, over two centuries, made our lives more than twenty times more prosperous than the citizens of our nation when founded. You could also very simply compare our economic well being as compared to socialist models both in the past and currently. Does anyone with the possible exception of the Michael Moore's and Sean Penn's of the world seriously believe that Cuba's economic and social model is superior to ours as judged by the well being of their respective citizens? As has often been noted, the rafts between these two neighboring nations seems to only be going in one direction, towards freedom.

A perfect example of the statist mind, which only sees or chooses to see one side of the equation was illustrated recently when Jessie Jackson Jr. went to the floor of the House and made this remarkable statement which, as it happens, also involved Steve Jobs:

“A few short weeks ago I came to the House floor after having purchased an iPad and said that I happened to believe, Mr. Speaker, that at some point in time this new device, which is now probably responsible for eliminating thousands of American jobs. Now Borders is closing stores because, why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go to Barnes & Noble? Buy an iPad and download your newspaper, download your book, download your magazine.”

Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the dynamics of economics knows that what Representative Jackson is describing is what is known as creative destruction."(a) process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one."

Those of the mind set of Jackson who have a static world view only see the destruction and ignore the creative changes that more than make up for the loss of the old while making way for the new. While bemoaning the destruction of Borders, Jackson ignores the far more innovative and productive advent of the IPad which among other things allows for the employment of thousands upon thousands of Apple employees and now other pad manufacturers and the related industries and enterprises growing out of it's entrance into our society.

Based on Jackson's theory of life and economy we would still have peasants tilling vast tracks of land by hand in order to save their jobs from the "creative destruction" of the plow. As a true blue liberal of the highest order one would think that Jackson and people of his persuasion would at least recognize the great ecological advantage the IPad etc. would have. Think of all the tree that will now be saved from the smoke belching pulp mills.

Consider the contrast between the free market economic model as compared to the current statist model which has slowly but surely infected the United States. A perfect illustration would be Solyndra.

Putting aside the corrupt cronyism which is always present when government and business collude rather than letting free markets determine outcomes the story of Solyndra was as pathetic as it was predictable. Solyndra never once made an honest days profit and left in its wake only waste and heartache. Because government decided that a particular form of energy was needed they attempted to create a new playing field disconnected from free market principles.

Not only has Solyndra not contributed to society, it has in fact stolen from society, Vast sums of taxpayer's monies, such as those paid into society by Apple and it's employees was given to Solyndra
in the belief that it would eventually work to the greater good of society. Remember too that these monies were ostensibly taken from one segment of citizens (private sector employees) and given to Solyndra as a means to stimulate job growth. In affect and to a large degree Solyndra and it's employees were not a private enterprise but rather a quasi government agency supported by the private sector not too dissimilar from the post office. And now it is gone with all of the money.

Consider the difference between Apple and Solyndra and their contributions to society. On the day that Apple went public less than a decade after two kids created it in their garage, thirty millionaires were made, The immense wealth and well being which private free market entities such as Apple has created stands in stark contrast to the absolute corruption and waste that statist inspired Solyndra's
wreak on society.

It boggles the mind that a large segment of society is so obtuse that they can not see the advantages to man's well being in the freedom of not only their physical being but in their economic pursuits as well. Statist are control freaks, they believe that given enough control they can dictate outcomes which are the most beneficial to all. But everyone knows or should know that people will always make choices that serve their own best interest. The statist sees this as greed and selfishness without even seeing that their world view is the most selfish mindset of all. Only arrogance of the highest degree would allow someone to believe that they know what is best for another less alone an entire society.

One of the great benefits of market based societies and all societies are ultimately market based, is that the process of creative destruction always plays out, the old and obsolete is replaced by the new and more efficient. I believe we are either near the end of the statist experiment when the market place of ideas will finally crush the totalitarian goals masquerading as benevolence or we are about to enter a new dark age in the human experience where old lessons must be learned again.

I predict the former rather than the latter, not only because I am at heart an optimist, but because the revolution which people like Steve Jobs started can not be put back in the bottle unless the statist can control everyone's IPad and IPhone and they are not that smart.

If they were they would believe in free markets and freedom.

The Worthless Bill of Rights

2011-10-16T13:20:00.002-04:00

Many, if not most Americans, mistakenly believe that United States citizens have enjoyed the freedoms and liberties that we do in large measure or completely due to the Bill of Rights which is written into our constitution. Actually nothing could be further from the truth.

Don't get me wrong our Bill of Rights are not only historically important they are in large measure, in the beginning at least, what set us apart from the rest of the world and began an age of political enlightenment that spread around the globe. But the truth is almost every nation has some form of "Bill of Rights" written into their constitutions most very similar to our own. Even the UN Charter which is supposed to guide its member nations has a very ambitious "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Here are just a few of the thirty articles which all nations belonging to the United Nations allegedly are bound to promote and follow:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person....

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination....

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him....

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property...
Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures....

Some pretty good stuff in there isn't there? Most nations have some pretty good stuff written into their Constitutions. Quite a few of these nations have rights written into their various constitutions to protect citizen's rights not unlike this from the former Soviet Union's Constitution

Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio....

Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

All good stuff. but they were not worth the paper they were written on if, and here is what is important, if the government is not charged and willing to protect these rights.

Our Founding Fathers recognized this, that words were meaningless unless a mechanism is in place which would enable individual liberties to be protected.

Protected from what? What is the only entity in any nation which has the power to withhold or deny a citizen of their individual rights? Is it the fat cats on Wall Street? Big oil? Big Pharma? No, only one entity has the power to deprive an individual of the "right to life, liberty and security of person" and that is that nation's government.

What made the United States different was not that we had a Bill of Rights. it is that the Founders protected those rights by disabling the power of the government they created from impugning on those rights. They did this in many ways beginning with the Oath of Office which all government officials take which in one form or another binds the official not to the government or even the nation but rather to the Constitution which itself protects the rights of the individual. Our elected officials are not sworn to protect the United States per say but rather the document which protects the individual against the government they are about to join.
In affect government officials are honor bound to protect the rights of the individual "against all enemies foreign and domestic" through the mechanisms within the Constitution.

Whenever the Constitution is circumvented, even with good intentions as it's goal, what is actually being circumvented is the individual rights guaranteed within the Constitution though this may not be readily apparent. For example when the House and Senate used unorthodox and strong handed methods to overcome the minorities (Republicans) legitimate parliamentary check on Obamacare, they not only poisoned the well of their own institution, they undermined the very spirit of our Constitution and thus individual rights. Although the individual mandate is obviously a violation of the Constitution the far more damaging aspect of it is the degree to which elected representatives were willing to go with virtually no concern for the destruction of the very document which they not only swore an oath to, but which was designed to protect the rights of the individual.

The fact that these representatives of the people were elected by the people and were given by those citizens the consent to dilute if not destroy their very liberties is a testament to how naive and ignorant a large segment of Americans are to the fundamentals of their own freedom.

The US Constitution was designed to promote gridlock and the two party system when actually operational insures that it will. Why do we have Obamacare? We have Obamacare because for a time we had a one party system which was willing to trample on the traditional rights of the minority party in order to pass something which they felt was best for the nation.

The reason that the US Constitution was designed the way that it was, is to prevent exactly what has occurred over the past three years and to a large degree what has been happening over the past century. It was designed so that when the nation wishes to make significant changes in American society, politically or otherwise, well defined hurdles must be overcome to insure that it is in fact consistent with the "consent of the governed" without trampling on the rights of the minority. It is not to say that the minority view will always veto that of the majority, only that the minority will always have the opportunity to be a recognized and respected participant in the affairs of the nation. Only in this way can a minority view not only be heard, it can have an opportunity to sway the society to its view.

This process, the protection of the minority view point while seeking to ascertain what is the "consent of the governed" is not only a fundamental ingredient to our Republic, it is a key component to true freedom. It protects our society not only from the tyranny of the majority but also of the minority. It also insures the possibility that a minorities view point has an opportunity, which it has many times in our history, through "the battlefield of ideas" to win over a free society to its point of view. The majority is not always right but they are always the majority. If the majority is wrong it must be swayed to another point of view through a civil process. This civil process of political discourse is one of the most important and ingenious aspects of our form of government which is laid out in our Constitution. It is actually beyond ingenious it is inspired and rightly promoted and understood. it is inspirational.

Obamacare is a text book example of why our Founders designed our institutions to be more of a "do nothing" than a "do something!" form of government. They knew, and history has proven, that governments by their very nature will seek, grow and covet their power to the detriment of individual liberty.

What has transpired is as predictable as human nature, as government power and size has grown, not only have people's liberties been diminished, people's self reliance has been subjugated to a unhealthy reliance upon government. Nowhere is this contrast more evident than the two movements which now have arisen in America, The Tea Party Movement and The Occupy Wall Street Movement. One which is demanding that government do less while the other demands that government do more. One of these is the majority opinion and one is in the minority.

It is obvious by polling and other matrix that, in America at least, the less government ideal still holds the majority status though it has lost its once overwhelming dominance in the past century as progressiveism has infiltrated our culture. What is occurring now is a battle for the soul of the America ideal which is basically that man can rule himself without subjugating basic human liberties to a parental governing structure. Do governments exist to serve people or are the people the servants of their government? Both the Soviet and United States constitutions claimed the former but only one was written to promote and insure it.

One might wonder how it is that the majority view so often looses the battle to the minority view in this contest betweemn government authority versus individual liberty? There are many reasons but the most obvious is this, people do what they love. The people who love the idea of government control gravitate towards government while those who do not care for government control avoid government, on both sides of the political spectrum by the way. Those who oppose government control of the individual who do enter government are in effect working within and promoting ideals which are contrary and antithetical to the very nature of the institution in which they operate. This too is why so many small government advocates are swallowed up and become defenders to the very system they initially opposed. It is why many DC conservative pundits and politicians loose sight of the ideals that they profess to embrace and instead become cynical defenders of the status quo, having been absorbed into a process driven world rather than a principled one.

What is the solution? How do we get back to the American ideal of the key to that self evident truth of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being the only true goal of a government for its citizens? It is as simple as it will be difficult to attain, as difficult as it was for founding generation to achieve. This generation must re-establish the Constitution as the law of the nation and hold our elected representatives at all levels accountable to the oath they swear to it. We must also in every way possible explain how important this is to the people who do not understand that their very freedom and their children's freedom is at stake-because it is.

Our Bill of Rights is only as good as those who are willing to stand up for it and to defend the the Constitution which defends those rights, otherwise it is just worthless words on a paper.

Game Changer?

2011-10-12T21:59:00.000-04:00

Being an avid student of history it always is exciting to me when reading the chronicles of an event or of a time period when I come to a the point where something occurs and you just know, that was it. That was the event, the speech, the vote, the battle, the happening that changed the direction of history. Almost always it is not some spontaneous thing, it is just the culmination of the direction events were going anyway, but that happening takes place and the unfocused clarifies itself and the game changes.

With a along way to go and not a vote cast it is difficult to say that something in the current Republican Preidential nominating process could be a game changer, but perhaps this is.

"Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy, the goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates."

and

"Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."

That sounds like a ringing endorsement for, if not Herman Cain, at least his tax plan which has gotten so much attention of late. What makes it truly significant is that it comes not from some politician wishing to jump on the "Cain Train" but rather from the Godfather of Supply Side Economics himself, Art Laffer. For those who may not know who Dr Laffer is, for whom the Laffer Curve is named, here is a portion of his biography from CNBC.

Dr. Laffer’s economic acumen and influence in triggering a world-wide tax-cutting movement in the 1980s have earned him the distinction in many publications as "The Father of Supply-Side Economics." One of his earliest successes in shaping public policy was his involvement in Proposition 13, the groundbreaking California initiative that drastically cut property taxes in the state in 1978.

Years of experience and success in advising on a governmental level have distinguished Dr. Laffer in the business community as well. He currently sits on the board of directors of several public companies, which include: MPS Group Inc. (MPS) and Oxigene Inc. (OXGN). He also sits on the board of directors or board of advisors of a number of private companies including: Nicholas Applegate Institutional Funds, Retirement Capital Group, Pillar Data Systems, LifePics, Jovian Holdings, Roth Capital, Atrevida Partners, Health Edge Partners, First Q Capital, The Mayfair Group, and Endovascular Instruments. In the past, he has served on the board of directors of: Veolia Environnement, Provide Commerce, Neff Corporation, Petco, Clarcor and Amplicon Financial.

Dr. Laffer is a founding member of the Congressional Policy Advisory Board, a select group of advisors who assist in shaping legislative policies for the 105th, 106th and 107th United States Congress.

Dr. Laffer was a member of President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board for both of his two terms (1981-1989). He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Reagan/Bush Finance Committee in 1984 and was a founding member of the Reagan Executive Advisory Committee for the presidential race of 1980. He also advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on fiscal policy in the United Kingdom during the 1980s.

To put it simply much of conservative and Republican economic policies are based upon the work and theories of Art Laffer. Only Milton Friedman is held in higher esteem in the "right's" economic realm than Art Laffer.

To put it bluntly had Dr Laffer made these views known prior to this past debate I doubt any of the other candidates would have dared criticize Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, at least not without much trepidation.

What can the other candidates now say when the man recognized as being the driving force behind Reganomics praises the plan? They now look slightly foolish making so light of something that has now been endorsed by a super star of right side economics.

More from the brief story in Human Events:

Laffer also said that "such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment."

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan will now have to be seriously considered and the fact that Dr Laffer is backing it will only increase it's popularity with fiscal conservative voters, even if the other candidates still attempt to make it out to be not a serious proposal.

It is however a serious and bold proposal the kind which American's have been looking for. It now has the potential to be a game changer, with the endorsement of a man who can not be dismissed.

Shaking the hand of God?

2011-10-08T22:38:00.019-04:00

The Book of Revelation in the Bible is one of the most studied and discussed pieces of written words in human history. Most Christian place a great deal of faith in the idea that it foretells the coming days, whenever those days may be, and that it foretells the end of the world and the beginning of a new spiritual world (or age, depending upon your particular translation).

While taking great care to properly interpret the meaning of Revelations which has been the fodder for much written and cinematic fiction, Christians have pretty much settled on a theme which they agree upon. The key components are well known, in no particular order; "The sign of the Beast", "Armageddon", "The anti-Christ", "The Rapture", "the Second Coming of Christ" and other elements which have evolved over the ages to create a well understood and accepted Christian narrative which foretells the "End Times".

There is an often quoted yet obviously much ignored verse in Revelations which has little to do with this narrative but in my view of things is far more important since it has to do with what Christians are supposed to be seeking, the nature of God. I know that is not nearly as satisfying to human nature as evangelizing but it is far more important. The verse is found in the twenty second chapter, thirteenth verse and says simply:

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Like most of the Book of Revelations indeed much of the New Testament this verse is just an updating of Old Testament words and prophecy to the new audience and the new beginning brought into the equation by the entrance of Christ, The Old Testament version of this would be found in several places such as Isaiah 41:4:

Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD--with the first of them and with the last--I am he."

or Isaiah 46:10

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

There are more, but you get the idea, or do you? I say that these much quoted verses are ignored but in reality they are just "explained" away. You see these verses and others state rather clearly that God has known the end from the beginning. The reason they have to be explained away is simple, if God has known the end from the beginning then where does that leave man's precious free will in the grand scheme of things ?

Since man's alleged free will is not the topic I wish to pursue here I'll just say that in order to explain this seeming contradiction Christianity has theologically created what I like to call GOD THE GREAT FORTUNE TELLER theory. The God who created everything knows how everything is going to end but apparently has very little input into how it gets there. Well except when He works through people, but people make their own choices, but in the end they are going to make choices that will lead to the end that God has determined from the beginning. Got it?

I know, I know it is all very confusing, well at least it is if you don't want to believe that God is in charge of everything form beginning to end and everything in between which Christian Bibles plainly state but which Christians are not quite ready to accept. But that as I said is for another day...or is it?

Charles Krauthhammer has written a wonderful article on the recent potentially Universe changing scientific discovery. He writes:

I am talking about something far more important. Which is why it made only the back pages of your newspaper, if it made it at all. Scientists at CERN, the European high-energy physics consortium, have announced the discovery of a particle that can travel faster than light.

Neutrinos fired 454 miles from a supercollider outside Geneva to an underground laboratory in Gran Sasso, Italy, took less time (60 nanoseconds less) than light to get there. Or so the physicists think. Or so they measured. Or so they have concluded after checking for every possible artifact and experimental error.

If verified the significance of this will be beyond big, it will be, excuse the pun, a quantum leap in our understanding, or rather, our lack of understanding of how the universe works. As Krauthammer puts it:

And that’s the problem. It has to be impossible because, if not, if that did happen on this Orient Express hurtling between Switzerland and Italy, then everything we know about the universe is wrong.

The fundamental axiom of Einstein’s theory of relativity is the absolute prohibition on speed faster than light. Einstein’s predictions about how time slows and mass increases as one approaches the speed of light have been verified by a mountain of experimental evidence. As velocity increases, mass approaches infinity and time dilates, making it progressively and, ultimately, infinitely difficult to achieve light speed. Which is why nothing does. And nothing ever has.

Yet this is precisely what this group of scientist have potentially done, they have defied the speed of light and all the theories tied to it. What really caught my attention in the article was his description of what this finding would mean as a practical (?) matter. He explained it this way:

To oversimplify grossly: If the Gran Sasso scientists had a plate to record the arrival of the neutrinos and a super-powerful telescope to peer (through the Alps!) directly into the lab in Geneva from which they were being fired, the Gran Sasso guys would have “heard” the neutrinos clanging against the plate before they observed the Geneva guys squeeze the trigger on the neutrino gun.

Think about that, we may have found something which redefines what we know as time. If such physical mechanics actually are at work within the dynamics of the universe then it is possible that an effect could be know prior to its cause. Which would be a very good definition for "knowing the end from the beginning."

One of the most amazing facts that I have ever read, is that just over a century ago scientist believed that the universe was comprised of about a million stars. Today's best estimate is that the universe is comprised of a billion galaxies each containing about a billion stars. I do not even know how to calculate the factor of the increase of how much larger creation (God) is than what we believed just a century ago.

Was God (creation) smaller a century ago? Of course not, man's ability to see the universe he lived in was just inadequate to see that creation. But those countless billions of stars were there all the time, give or a take a few million due to the ever expanding universe we now know we live in. It is not God and His/Her laws and creation which changes, it is our understanding and cognizance of them that does.

If those neutrinos actually do travel faster than the speed of light, then they always have. The way God's creation works is still a mystery to us, perhaps a bigger mystery than we ever imagined because there is something out there in the physical realm which can call forth the end from the beginning and time as we know it is irrelevant which when you are talking about infinity makes sense.... if only in the Spirit.

Those flabbergasted scientist in Europe may have reason to be, they may have just shaken hands with God.

Can SCOTUS save Obama?

2011-10-08T15:23:00.003-04:00

There has been much speculation as to why the Obama Administration suddenly changed course on Obamacare. Despite the conventional thinking that the administration would delay and "slow walk" court cases through the judicial process, which they had been doing, they reversed course and chose not to appeal the three judge panels ruling to the entire Eleventh Circuit that the mandate is unconstitutional. In addition they joined with the states and parties who brought the suit in asking the Supreme Court to rule on the case which almost assures that it will do so some time early next summer, right at the beginning of the general election campaign.

I have my own explanation for this which I have not heard anyone yet put forth, but first we must understand a couple key points.

The first point is that unlike the ruling Judge Vinson made which said that not only was the individual mandate unconstitutional, without the mandate the law itself was in affect void because there was no severability clause written into it and that without the mandate the law itself is unworkable.. The 11th Circuit panel did not rule that the whole law (Obamacare) was void as Judge Vinson had, but rather only the individual mandate was was unconstitutional.

This is key to what I am about to present. Remember the ruling now in affect by the 11th Circuit Court is that the mandate is unconstitutional but the rest of the law is still valid. In affect the panel did what congress did not do, they severed the mandate from the law but left the law in place.

Why is this important ?

Well it goes back to why there had to be a mandate in the first place. Most of us who oppose Obamacare do so because of the individual mandate which we find an affront to our liberties which it most assuredly is, but the reason for the mandate are more practical. Obmacare did not eliminate private insurance though that is the hoped for ultimate outcome, but what it did do is dictate to insurance companies certain coverage mandates which they must follow which is as egregious an affront to liberty as the individual mandate but less popularly opposed. In fact these coverage mandates are quite popular with the public even if unworkable without the individual mandate. These coverage mandates such as covering preexisting conditions, covering children until they are twenty-six and a host of others written into the law and others being regulated into the law through Health and Human Services would break the insurance companies without the individual mandate requiring all Americans to have insurance which pays for it.

The scenario of the law without the individual mandate but with the other provisions still in place has been referred to as a "death spiral" for the insurance industry. Philip Klein in the American Spectator explained back in 2010 when the Vinson ruling first came out.

It's long been accepted as a given in health care policy circles that if the government is going to force insurers to offer coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, they're also going to have to require that everybody purchase insurance. Without a mandate, you end up with the infamous "death spiral" -- healthy people forgo purchasing coverage because they know they can wait until they get sick, leaving insurers with sicker beneficiaries, which drives up premiums and causes more healthy people to exit the market, and so on.

Which brings us back to the administration's decision to expedite a Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. Remember where we stand now is that the individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional but the rest of the law still stands. If the individual mandate is ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS, then Obama wins the political battle and the fight becomes about just repealing Obamacare, a fight I might add that Mitt Romney would be at a severe disadvantage in compared to the other candidates. Most people had expected that this would be the political battle going into the 2012 elections if the Supreme Court had not ruled anyway which is why everyone expected Obama to "slow walk" the legal battle.

Now however we have the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule come next June and there is a very real possibility, that SCOTUS upholds the Eleventh Circuit's ruling and finds the individual mandate unconstitutional but leaves the rest of the law for the other two branches to figure out. Although this might appear to be a severe loss to the Administration it might not be so bad, in fact it could be a game changer in Obama's favor in several ways.

Most observers particularly on the right believe that the threat of Obamacare is a severe drag on the economy. Many have said that a repeal of Obamacare would have a stimulative affect on the economy. People and businesses would initially react very positively to the ruling believing that an unnecessary and huge regulatory burden was about to be lifted from the American economy. I suspect that if the individual mandate were ruled unconstitutional the immediate affect would be a strong surge in consumer and business confidences which could even generate an uptick in America's economy. This of course would occur in the summer of 2012 most likely after the Republican candidate is already known.

A ruling overturning the individual mandate without voiding the entire law would in reality be disastrous, creating the "death spiral" situation explained above. This situation is well understood by policy makers but far less understood by the general public and would take some time to sink in. The Republican candidate would have to explain this to the public and Obama could correctly though cynically say that he had been opposed to the individual mandate but was forced to accept it in order to pay for all the "good things" in Obamacare such as the not yet in affect preexisting condition coverage and the already in place twenty six year old children rule. The "good things" that the nasty Republicans want to eliminate with their calls for repeal of the rest of the law, the rest of the law that the general public likes.

So it is very possible that a ruling that kills the individual mandate but does not void the law could work to Obama's advantage on a couple of levels. It could create a brief surge in economic confidence or even growth going into the heart of the political season and it could give Obama a very potent issue to run on. Now that the odious individual mandate is off the table only I, Obama can claim, can save the benefits of the law America wants from the evil clutches of the Republicans who want to take them away from you.

The fact that the only way that this can be accomplished is by a total government take over of the nations health care with a single payer system, which is what he wants anyway, is secondary. the argument will be to save the anticipated benefits of Obamacare from being taken away. As it is now it will be very difficult for the Republican candidate to argue against the 26 year old child rule since many Americans are already benefiting by it, even though other Americans are paying for it in higher premiums on their policies.

The hope is that the Supreme Court will rule the individual mandate unconstitutional (at minimum) and void the entire law, but I think this is doubtful. More likely they will hold with the 11th circuit's recent ruling and leave it up to Congress to fix the mess they created. If they do then I can see Obama using it to not only to rally his base to save or even, in their eyes, improve Obamacare, but to use it as a sledgehammer to beat the Republican candidate with. If that candidate is Romney, it could be a very effective tool indeed.

Perhaps this is why they chose to speed up the process.

"Vote for Obama-Biden and every American's healthcare will be covered -the Republican's will take that away"

Cain he do it?

2011-09-27T09:07:00.001-04:00

Cain he do it?

There has been much talk about Herman Cain since he won the recent Florida straw poll and much discussion about whether or not he really has a legitimate shot at the Republican nomination. I will adress that in a bit but first a couple of items, a little about Herman Cain and the Florida straw poll.

Unlike the other "grass root" backed candidate in the running Michelle Backmann, Herman Cain has extensive executive experience though absolutely no political public service experience. Not having held elected office has both benefits and drawbacks but I would say on balance in the current political environment this is a net plus for Cain, especially in the Republican nominating process.

Americans especially the activist base of the GOP are desperately looking for new, reform minded thinking in Washington and Cain fits into that mold very well. The only other candidate articulating bold new reform minded policies is Newt Gingrich, but Newt is not only not an outsider he comes with a great deal of baggage which hurt him in both the nominating process and the general election.

There is a lot about Cain's resume that is both impressive and some of which is as yet little known outside of those following him closely. Most people know that he was the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and know of his famous confrontation with Bill Clinton during the Hillary Care debate. However I doubt few know that he is a mathematician who once worked for the US Navy in charge of doing the mathematics on battleship's ability to shoot and hit their targets. Or that Cain was once the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Even the liberal elitist will have a hard time making the case that a man with his background is a dummy which liberals are wont to do with conservative candidates.

His life story is even more impressive. Unlike Obama Cain truly does represent the rags to riches of a black man who overcame the segregation and racism of a southern background to reach success. From his web site

Herman Cain grew up in Atlanta, Georgia with loving parents and little else. His father worked three jobs—as a janitor, a barber and a chauffeur—and his mother was a domestic worker. Even though these jobs required hard work and little glamour, his parents knew this life was better than the dirt farms upon which they grew up. They also knew that this hard work was the key to achieving their American Dreams.

Herman’s parents had two dreams. First, they wanted to own their own house. Secondly, they wanted both of their children to graduate from college. During the segregation era in the Deep South, these aspirations might have seemed lofty, but they knew that if they kept their faith in God, faith in themselves and faith in the greatest country on the Earth, they could achieve.

The first dream was realized in a modest brick house on Albert Street in Atlanta, Georgia. After years of saving from his many jobs, Herman’s father surprised the whole family, even his wife, by purchasing a home for their family. The second dream was realized when Herman graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in mathematics in 1967. His brother, Thurman, would go on to graduate from Morris Brown College.

What narrative can Democrats use to mitigate that compelling life's story? No, Herman Cain's background is not only impressive it is inspiring and I did not even mention that he is a stage four liver cancer survivor.

As to the Florida straw poll one thing tat is not being reported is the difference between the straw poll in Iowa, which Backmann won, and the one in Florida which Cain won.

The Iowa Caucus was much more like a general election, anyone who paid $10 could buy a ticket and vote. This is why the various candidates bought tickets and gave them out to supporters and others in the weeks leading up to the caucus which in itself is like a Fair. Not surprisingly Backmann and Ron Paul gave out the most tickets and finished first and second in the poll.

The Florida straw vote is much more like a party convention. The delegates were primarily selected by their county Republican parties and in fact had to not only have been registered Republicans but have caucused with their local Republican Party prior to selection. There were other ways a person could vote in the process but by and large the people who voted were people representing their county Republican Party. This is why despite the much larger size of Florida compared to Iowa only 2657 people voted in Florida's straw poll whereas Iowa had 16892 voters in theirs. It is true that neither straw poll is either scientific or necessarily indicative of how the particular states electorate will vote, the Florida straw poll is much more representative of how the state's Republican infrastructure feels about the candidates.

The distinction between the processes used in various straw polls and their significance in determining what they mean in the nominating process is not reported on. Herman Cains victory in Florida is a far more significant development in the Republican race than Backmann's Iowa victory.

Having said all of that, it is doubtful that Herman Cain can win the Republican nomination, though not nearly so doubtful as the talking head pundits make it out to be.

Cain's biggest obstacle is money, it takes a tremendous amount of money to run a national campaign. Although according to reports Cain is being swamped with donations since his Florida victory, he still has a long way to go in order to compete with the deep pockets of Romney and Perry. However if he can stay in it and other candidates begin to fall off, it is possible he could compete. If he is seen as the true anti-establishment candidate and Perry continues to falter things could change dramatically.

The introduction of the Tea Party Movement as a powerful political force in the country and especially in the Republican Party, changes the normal political rules greatly. We don't yet know how much this will change the normal political landscape, but based on what has already happened I would not be surprised if the old rules are thrown to the winds.

Where Herman Cain is concerned there is a lot of as yet unexplored possibilities both for the Tea Party Movement and the Republican Party which could make him an inviting candidate. Just a couple to think about which I may explore more as time goes on if Cain continues to look viable.

What would a Cain candidacy do to the Democrats hold on the African American constituency?

What if Cain picked one of the "leaders in waiting" faction of the Republican Party as a VP IE Rubio, Ryan?

What if Cain (like his 9-9-9 plan) began to propose even more bold and popular reforms to the US government?

What is the attack strategy of the Democrats against a Herman Cain in general election? He does not have enough experience?

As Sarah Palin recently opined this indeed could be a very unconventional election season and no more so than if Herman Cain begins to rise in the polls.

Grow up America

2011-09-25T11:44:00.001-04:00

Toons

2011-09-24T13:02:00.003-04:00

Aborting the child

2011-09-22T09:14:00.002-04:00

"I hope he fails" Rush Limbaugh famously observed of President-elect Barack Obama in January of 2009, creating a firestorm of criticism from both the left and the right.

Although everyone knew that what Rush was saying was that he hoped the institution of Obama's policies would fail, it did not keep the critics at bay. Instead they insisted that what he really meant was that he hoped Obama's presidency would fail or as was most widely asserted, was that Rush Limbaugh, whose love for America is undeniable, for some reason hoped America itself would fail.

The question is, did Obama fail? Not by the standards attributed to Rush, but rather by the standards that he actually meant, Was Obama successful at instituting his policies? The answer for the most part is Obama did not fail.

Right out of the gate he was able to pass the 800+ billion stimulus package which was his answer to the economic crisis that he "inherited".

Having checked this little detail off the list he immediately pivoted to "Obamacare" which after a year plus battle he shoved through congress against the expressed will of the American people. It may not have been as extreme a bill as he and his allies had hoped for, but given time it was and is designed to turn the US healthcare system into a single payer (socialist) health care system.

Obama and his allies were also able to pass the Dodd-Frank Bill which despite it's supposed consumer protections, institutionalizes "to big to fail" into our financial system. A financial system that is now far more controlled by the federal government, commonly known as fascism.

Obama when thwarted in his far left desires by congress has bypassed them and instituted his policies through executive orders or through extra-constitutional rule making in the Executive branch. These shenanigans have been most publicized through rules passed down by the EPA and NLRB but they have been "liberally" used in all departments of the Executive branch in order to bypass nettlesome opposition in the Legislative branch.

All in all based on what Rush meant rather than what was ascribed to him, Obama has not failed. In fact he has probably been the most successful liberal president in instituting liberal and progressive doctrine into actual government operations since LBJ. Far more so than Clinton who governed more like a "RINO" than a liberal and far more effective than the pathetic Jimmy Carter.

So where has this left Obama with all his "successes"? In the low 40's in job approval ratings and his fellow liberals running away from him as fast as a donkey can Gallup.

Consider this observation from a Politico story this morning

“It’s going to be a really tough battle,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told POLITICO. “Democrats are all going to have to distinguish themselves from the president.

This from as liberal a congressman in the House as there is and who voted for and supports every bit of liberal legislation that Obama succeeded in implementing. When he says "distinguish themselves" he actually means distance themselves. Why, isn't this what you voted for? Aren't Obama's policies your policies?

Further in the article we read this betrayal:

“It didn’t have to be this way,” said another House Democrat who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. “Obama’s presidency has fizzled. It’s going to be every person for himself in 2012. There just won’t be any coattails, and any effect he does have on the ballot will hurt us.”

“It’s hard because we’re inherently linked to the president and his number,” said a top Democratic operative close to party leadership. “It’s got us all pessimistic.”

Is this one of the congressman or "operatives" who stood on the House floor and cheered as "Obamacare" was passed into law in March of 2010? Why didn't it have to be this way? What did Obama do that an overwhelming majority of the Democrats in the House and the entire Democratic membership in the Senate not vote for when they enacted Obamacare? Or was it one of the many other liberal policies that they enacted on on a almost total partisan basis that now has them fleeing from the president?

The Democrats in congress, the media and the entire liberal structure of American politics is now beginning to turn on Barack Obama, or at the very least they are attempting to "distinguish themselves" from him, why? They supported and cheered on every bit of legislation and policy he enacted and now he is somehow becoming persona non gratis of the American left? What did he do wrong?

Interesting isn't it that with all that Obama has accomplished.the lefts true believers say that he did not do enough. He did not carry their vision of leftist utopia far enough, he compromised his principles, their principles. He did not get enough "stimulus" to pour into more Solyndras. He did not get single payer health care enacted, he did not completely take over the financial segment of our economy or pass Cap and Trade and Card Check.

If only Obama had done more, if only he had closed Gitmo and retreated from Iraq and Afghanistan,

Then they would not have to abort their once beloved child. It is almost as if they think he has Down Syndrome

History is conservative

2011-09-18T12:34:00.002-04:00

Not ideologically but naturally. History seldom if ever happens all at once, it develops slowly over time. The more dramatic the historical change the longer it took to arrive at what we later identify as its tipping point.

Our Declaration of Independence was the culmination of decades of colonial discontent which was in itself fermented by centuries of ideological inquiry into the place of government in the affairs of men. Our civil War did not really begin at Ft. Sumter but rather was preordained by the very words that set America on the path to liberty "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal..." Those words and the internal struggle to realize their noble meaning is what caused the decades long struggle which realized its tipping point at Ft Sumter.

So it is with all of history, like a wave starting far out at sea it moves relentlessly forward building momentum until it ultimately breaks across the shores of the current time catching many unaware or surprised by its force. This is true of epic events such as our Revolution or Civil War and it is also true of the less historic but as important minor developments that lead up to societal upheavals.

It is no wonder then that many on the left saw the spontaneous combustion of the Tea Party Movement as a reaction to our first black president and labeled it as racist. They were caught unaware of the years of frustration by a large segment the American electorate to "Big Government" policies. The Tea Party Movement was as much a reaction to years of Republican betrayal as it was to Democratic governance which reached a breaking point with the onset of the over the top spending at the outset of the Obama Administration. Only by living in a vacuum could a person look at the TPM as the product of racism rather than the release of pent up anger of at least two decades of discontent. The left has always had a problem of existing within a echo chamber, feeding off its own mantra rather than understanding the forces at work all around them. They ignore not only the present but the past and this is why they are so often not only wrong but shocked that the world is not behaving the way that they have told themselves it should.

Never has this been more obvious than through a quirk of historical circumstances aided and abetted by unprincipled politicians on the right, a complicit media and a nation suffering an identity crisis which allowed the left for a brief period of time to gain complete control of the US Government.

Rather than recognizing that circumstances had led them to this fortuitous place, they instead assumed that they had finally convinced the nation of the worthiness of their ideology and set out on a course to govern accordingly. The progressive left had become so accustomed to reinforcing themselves with their narrow vision that they actually came to believe that the nation was behind them that they were going to lead America into their long sought government controlled utopia.

How could it not be true, was not Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House? Had not the country elected as President the new icon of the progressive left to lead us to nirvana? So self-delusional is the leftist mind set that they did not or dared not recognize that much of their victory was predicated on the lies they told of themselves to the American public. Obama may have been a master at hiding is true ideological beliefs and intentions with help from a compliant dying media, but he was by no means unique. All national leftist politicians when removed from the safe but shrinking pockets of far left enclaves such as Berkley, Madison and the plantations of urban entitlement servitude must speak to the center while promoting the governance slightly right of Lenin. They give lip service to Madison while practicing Marx wishing all the while that they had the power of Stalin.

Rush Limbaugh puts it best, "Liberalism is a lie." I would qualify that by saying that Liberalism is a lie as it has been practiced by the Democratic Party in ever growing fallaciousness and maliciousness over the past century.

Only through an audacity of deception so great could the party of the KKK turn its opponents, the party of Lincoln, into the party of racist while claiming for itself the mantle of protectors of the oppressed. Now they are attempting to take it one step further by turning Martin Luther King who was a life long Republican into a champion of socialism. This is just one aspect of what the twentieth century American liberal/progressive movement has wrought like a cancerous puss on our great nation.

An example of their myopic vision the only vision modern day leftist have, is to be found in their denial of political trends. The fact that many on the right buy into this denial is a testament to the power of the media and institutional bias that has become ingrained in the American psyche . A denial that is quickly being exposed by simple truth and the cold hard facts of reality. Consider these political events since the 2008 elections;

March 2009 The beginning of the Tea Party Movement
August 2009 The Congressional Town Hall upheavals
September 2009 The Tea Party march on DC
November 2009 NJ and VA Governor elections
January 2010 Scott Browns election in MA
November 2010 Historic landslide victories for GOP in mid terms
September 2011 NY 9 GOP victory, NV 1 landslide GOP victory

Where is the comparable trend on the left?

It is true that as a matter of actual policy accomplishments the Democrats have accomplished a great deal, the stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank etc. and they are infecting the Federal Government with their bureaucratic rule making, but where is the momentum to maintain their gains ? Does anyone doubt that a similar reverse in political make up in the federal government from the right will not undo most if not all of this in short order? Perhaps not if there were no strong grass roots political movement to insure it, but the political trends, the wave of change, indicate that is what will happen.

Is there a counter movement to offset the momentum of the Tea Party Movement? Based on election results alone, which is the most important trend, the answer seems to be no. But is one developing?

On Saturday the left attempted to create a "grassroots movement" with a "Day of Rage" hearkening back to their glory days of the late sixties and early seventies. The show case was to be to Occupy Wall Street. Here is the final words on this "major" event from the New York Times:

As a chilly darkness descended, a few hundred people realized one of the day’s objectives by setting foot onto Wall Street after a quick march through winding streets, trailed by police scooters.

At William Street, they were blocked from proceeding toward the stock exchange, and the march ended in front of a Greek Revival building housing Cipriani Wall Street. Patrons on a second-floor balcony peered down.

As some of the patrons laughed and raised drinks, the protesters responded by pointing at them and chanting “pay your share.”

Yes, a political force to be reckoned with indeed.

While the media and the establishment of both parties fixate on the Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnel aspect of the Tea Party Movement the fact is Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Allen West, Nikki Haley and scores of other Tea Party Movement candidates at all levels of government are settling in. I have written before that the greatest impact of TPM, in the long run is at the local level. In my e-mail inbox right now is a notice from my local Tea Party informing me of an upcoming candidates forum for local elections which they are hosting and which they have hosted several of over the past couple of years. They also invite state and national candidates to speak at various functions and they make a point of coming to speak to Tea Party groups not only here but all around the nation.Who and where is a similar movement on the left? In the above NYT article about the "Day of Rage" I find no mention of a politician being involved. We hear a lot about union activity in politics, but does anyone who is paying attention seriously believe that we are about to see an infusion of union activist into the political process? On the contrary support for unions in America is at historic lows as are their membership rolls.

The progressives have dominated and been the activist and guiding force of the Democratic Party for a decade now but who are their leaders? Nancy Pelosi? Consider this press release the other day from the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Co-Chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison were joined by colleagues Jan Schakowsky, Lynn Woolsey, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Jim McDermott and Barbara Lee today to introduce the Rebuild the American Dream Framework and emergency jobs legislation.

Other than Kieth Ellis who on that list would even remotely be considered an "up and comer" less alone a young up and comer in national politics? Raúl M. Grijalva (62) barely held off the young Tea Party candidate Ruth McClung to retain his seat in the House this past election. Two other young up and comer progressives come to mind Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson and we all know how they are doing politically. They like liberal/progressive ideology itself were exposed for what they are, corrupt and mean spirited at its core and in order to maintain a constituency it must grow ever more so as time goes on.

So then who are the next generation of Progressive politicians? Yes when I think about the future the first person that comes to mind is Charlie Rangel. To put it bluntly, the progressive movement is growing old both figuratively and literally. It is dying a slow but painful for America death.

A new wave is coming ashore. It is not as the left tries desperately to portray it as something drug up from white wigged old men reading from dusty old parchment, only the tried and true foundation principles left to us by them.

When a grand mother advises to "eat your vegetables" the advice is no less sound because it comes from aged wisdom. So it is with governance grounded in principles of individual liberty and limited government time and age makes the precepts no less wise and relevant. In fact I would argue and history has shown that the more complex and diverse society becomes the more important it is to maintain the simplicity and common sense direction laid out to us by the founding documents amended as time and the evolution of societal changes require.

If we wish to reinvent the wheel it will only be made possible by a free people operating in free markets in a free society not by the dictates of a bureaucratic soviet centered in a far away capital governed by those whose idea of progress always leads to the point of a bayonet. But the default position of humanity is always towards freedom for that is from which we came and it is towards freedom which we always seek to return.

As a great cloaked conservative minstrel once sang "Time is on My Side"

Why Obama may not run

2011-09-03T15:38:00.001-04:00

Several articles have been written recently suggesting that Obama may not run for a second term. I have even stated that if he reached the point where he believed that he could not win he might not seek a second term in order to protect his massive ego. Most people speculating on this pretty much follow this logic, that to loose would be unbearable to Obama so he simply won't run.

The problem in this is the hypothesis itself has the seeds to it's own discrediting. Obama's ego will not allow him to admit to himself that he can not win, at least in time in which he could conceivably drop out of the race. After all it is not like he can wait until next summer to decide not to run that would throw the entire Democratic Party under the bus. If Obama is going to drop out of the presidential race he will have to do it before February to avoid chaos and in order to give the Democrats a chance at picking someone else, realistically he needs to do it by the end of the year.

With the election so far in the future it is doubtful that a man of Obama's massive self regard would reach the conclusion that he can not somehow talk his way out of his current situation, his personal history is one of talking and charming his way into getting what he wants. One reason he may decide not to run is that, what he will get by winning is not what he wants.

Although he may not be able to admit that he can loose, I seriously doubt that his ego is so generous as to include the rest of his party. The midterms of 2010 showed that he could not bring his fellow Democrats along with him on his narcissistic journey and 2012 is shaping up to be as least as bad a defeat for the Democrats in Congress. The Republicans are almost assured to hold the House and due to redistricting as a result of the census may even pick up some more seats.

In the Senate the situation is shaping up to be even worse for the Democrats. The math alone makes a Republican Senate almost assured, 23 Democratic seats are up compared to just 10 Republicans. Of the 23 Democratic Senate seats that are in play four of the long time incumbents have chosen not to run for re-election all of which are in "swing" states, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Virginia and New Mexico and these are not the only vulnerable Democratic held seats. The Democratic Senators in Missouri, Nebraska, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are among those seeking re-election, again all swing states whose other Senators are Republican showing how open they are. This does not include other potentially vulnerable Democrats in Michigan, New York, Washington and Montana. The Republicans by contrast only have one real vulnerable seat, Scott Brown in Massachusetts. To put it bluntly it would take a minor miracle for the Democrats to hold the Senate.

Some people have mentioned it would be a blessing in disguise for Obama if the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare before the election, thus avoiding him having to defend it as much during the Presidential campaign and people running on repealing it. I doubt that he would get off the hook quite that easily but I am sure that the Democratic Senators will not. If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional then all these Democratic Senators will have their opponents constantly reminding the voters of all the wasted time spent on a unconstitutional law which every one of them voted for. If it is not overturned then the election will become a referendum on repeal of a law which is severely underwater in the polls.

All of this leads us back to why Obama may not run for re-election. What if he wins, what would he have to look forward to?

If Obama believes that he can win in 2012 but knows that he will probably loose congress to total Republican control, why would he want to subject himself to the conservative onslaught which is bound to follow? Can the same man who sees himself as a transformative historical figure endure the idea of being an inconsequential hanger on?

Bill Clinton faced a similar, though not nearly as intense, situation in 1996. But there was some very important differences. The most important being that there is now a Tea Party Movement which will keep Republicans far more accountable and less likely to "compromise" which Obama is less likely to do anyway since he is far more ideological driven than Clinton was. This means that Obama will be left trying to "go over the congresses head" to the American people. The chances are that if Obama is re-elected it will be by a very narrow margin so this is not going to work. Reagan could do it because he won "mandate" type electoral victories, if Obama somehow wins it will be by a whisker.

This means we will have the most Liberal/Progressive President in American history with what is setting up to be the most conservative congress in modern American political history. It will be a complete stalemate from a legislative standpoint, far more than it is now. From Obama's standpoint it will be even worse than that. Everything that the Obama Administration has enacted over his first term will be under constant attack. Every appointment will be held up or rejected, every legislative initiative he takes will not only be intensely scrutinized but most likely will be rejected. In order to stave off the total undoing of his first term and to stop legislation he disagrees with he will have to employ the veto with all the public scrutiny that this would entail. If Republicans control the entire congress Obama would not be driving the agenda as he did the first two years, he would be on constant defense much as he has been this year but magnified five fold

Despite the portrayal in the sycophant media the Obama Administration, besides being extremely liberal, has been very corrupt. They got away with it for the first two years because of the media's failure to hold them to account and a Democratic congress, but now with a Republican majority in the House, more and more is being investigated and is seeing the light of day. If he were to win re-election and the Republican's were to control both houses of congress there would be no containing the inquiries and investigations into not only questionable constitutional practices but probable criminal activities. Fast and Furious is a political crime where perhaps some laws were broken but a serious probing into some of the financial dealings conducted by this administration could lead to serious corruption probes. Impeachment proceedings would not be outside the realm of possibilities.

This is what Obama has to look forward to if he wins a second term, the question is does he realize this? In the end the best thing that could happen to Obama is to run and loose because if he runs and wins (very doubtful)he will drag himself and the nation into four years of political war the likes of which we have not seen in generations.

Federal Spending What?

2011-08-31T00:20:00.000-04:00

Let's begin with this.
Whose Money ?

Everyone employed in America falls into one of three categories:

1. They are self-employed (me)
2. They are employed in the private sector (the majority of Americans)
3. They are employed in the public sector (teachers, city workers, federal workers, military etc)

This is important in a very simple way, these three categories of people are responsible, directly or indirectly, for all of the revenue of the Federal Government. Remember this when you hear the term Government spending, it may be the government doing the spending but it is those three categories of people, (every employed US citizen's money. I know some will argue that the unemployed pay taxes too, but the fact is that the taxes they pay are derived from the taxes paid by those employed or if the unemployed should find employment then they too will be paying taxes as one of those three categories of persons. Simple, right?

I said that all of the Federal Governments Revenue comes directly or indirectly from these people US. Let's first look at the direct revenue. The following figures are from 2010

Directly

The largest chunk of Federal Revenue comes from Individual Tax Payers 41.6% of all revenues (898.5 billion)

The next largest is payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) 40% of all revenues (864.8 billion)

These are direct revenues paid by individual Americans or their employers to the Federal Government which account for 81.6 % of all Federal Government revenue. There really should be no debate that the majority of Federal revenues is in fact our money, right?

Indirectly

Now for the indirect money whch we all pay to the Federal Government.

The largest of these is Corporate Taxes 8.9% of Federal revenues (191.4 billion)

Although it is popular to say that corporations don't pay their fair share the truth is, as Mitt Romney recently put it, "corporations are people." If corporations pay more in taxes then they must either cut somewhere such as in employee benefits or compensation or they must pass on the extra burden to the consumer-people.

Now it can be argued that some corporate officers make exorbitant salaries and receive immense compensation packages and perks, but in reality those end up being part of the 81.6% of direct revenues to the government. And the truth is that the more you make the more you pay in taxes so those overpaid corporate types actually pay more towards the direct revenue of the Federal Government. There is much more to be said on this but let's keep it simple. Corporations are responsible for almost 9% of all Federal revenues.

Next comes Customs, duties and misc. at 5.6% of all Federal revenues (121.2 billion).

Virtually all of this is ultimately passed onto the consumer and like all the other indirect revenues we pay to the Federal Government is relatively speaking rather minor compared to our direct contributions.

Next is Federal Excise Taxes 3.1% of all Federal Revenues (66.9 billion)

This is the federal taxes on gas, tires and other items. The majority of these could actually be called direct revenues since most of them are paid directly by US, but some are paid by manufacturers and then passed onto us, so we'll call them indirect.

Finally we have Estate and Gift Taxes .09% of Federal Revenues (18.9 billion)

Again these are probably more a direct tax but most of these are paid by dead taxpayers so we'll call them indirect. Actually it is the survivors of the dead taxpayers who pay this but as you can tell it is a very small portion of Federal revenues even if a very large sum for the individuals who have to pay it.

So there you have it, that is all the revenues that come into the Federal Government. To save you the trouble that is almost 2.263 trillion dollars. How much did we spend? Just over $3.456 trillion which left us with a deficit of almost 1.3 trillion dollars. How ridiculous is a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit in one year? Well the entire US Government ran on 1.3 trillion dollars way back in, guess? Can you guess how long ago the Federal Government ran on 1.3 trillion dollars? Think about it. Where do the revenues come to pay for that 1.3 trillion difference between what we give the Federal Government and they spend? The tooth fairy? No from future taxpayers either you or your children or their children or....

The point of this is to show that when we talk about Federal Spending we are not talking about some mysterious entity out there spending their money that benefits us. We are talking about our money being taken from us in one way or another and then being spent by a government which is not only wasteful, it is influenced by special interest of all types which more and more determine how that money, our money, is spent to benefit their...well their special interest.

Just too big

It is not as if all these special interest are bad, most are actually good, well for their special interest. And it is not as if the politicians that pander to these special interest are bad, it is just that the system has devolved into a corruption of governance. Why? Because the Federal Government has so much of our money and so much power that more and more special interest need to go to it in order to survive or to prosper. It is not the special interests which have corrupted government as much as it is an out of control Federal Government that has created an environment where only special interests can gain access. Why?

Simply because the Federal Government has grown so large with so much of our money that it has lost all semblance of being a government "for and by the people" and instead has become a gluttonous entity that has lost the trust of the very people it is supposed to serve. A recent poll shows that just 23% of Americans believe that the Federal Government has the consent of the governed. Here is why:

The Political Class, however, strongly disagrees. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of those in the Political Class believe the government does have the consent of the governed. Seventy-five percent (75%) of Mainstream voters don't share that view.

Do you see the total disconnect here? The people in government think they are serving US while those out of government do not. How can this be? They live in a bubble within a government so large that they do not even have to understand the rest of the country in order to feel as if they are doing what is right for the country, the process of government is their nation rather than the nation itself.

What is the solution? There is only one solution, shrink the size of the Federal Government. Disperse it's power back to the states and localities closer to the people where it is most responsible.

Taxes are not the problem, it is not about the money, it is about the power that the taxes and the money gives to an out of control Federal Government which has totally lost sight of its intended purpose. Which is? To protect the liberties of its people.

In 1991 the Federal Government ran on the amount of the deficit spending in 2010. In twenty years we have gone from a Federal Government that could operate for a year on 1.3 trillion to one that spends 1.3 trillion dollars more than it brings in.

Whose money?

Our money.

Vile self destruction

2011-08-27T10:15:00.000-04:00

It never ceases to amaze me how unimaginative and predictable a large segment of Progressive Liberalism is and how the Democratic Party has allowed itself to be defined by the rantings and total falsehoods of an extremist segment of its constituency. Not only are they being defined by this extremist element, in many ways they have embraced it in much the way a frightened man would embrace a grizzly in order not to be mauled to death by it.

Consider these two recent stories both from left leaning publications. The first is titled "Jesse Jackson Blasts Tea Party at Martin Luther King Jr. Event" with the sub-header stating, The civil rights leader says the group is up to old racist tricks. and begins:

"The Tea Party is not new," Jackson said. "It's just a new name for an old game."

Jackson told the audience that the Tea Party's tenets are simply a form of veiled racism that was used in the past to oppose federally mandated integration on the basis of state’s rights. The luncheon honored civil rights pioneers and featured guests and speakers such as Andrew Young, former United Nations ambassador and mayor of Atlanta, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and NAACP President Benjamin Jealous.

Note that this was not just a typical race baiting speech given by Jackson, but one at a very important event attended by members of key Democratic constituencies the administration and congress. By not denouncing this hateful rhetoric the Democratic Party tactically endorses it.

Now consider the next story which appeared in Politco the same day titled "Tim Scott is the tea party talent scout". Really the picture which accompanies the story, as they say, is worth a thousand words.

Tim Scott is not only a freshman congressman from South Carolina, he represents a conservative district and beat the grandson of Strom Thurmond in the Republican primary to get to the general election which he won with 65% of the vote. He along with Allen West of Florida are considered Tea Party favorites and as the Politico story points out with its typical liberal elitist snarkiness:

Scott’s town halls are hosted by a number of local GOP and tea party groups, uneasy allies in the feverish pitch to find a nominee to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012. But his fans in the state describe him as the elected official who could unite the two groups: he is tea party in ideology and but not in temperament, able to keep one foot in official Washington, where he’s an elected freshmen representative to the House leadership team, and one foot firmly planted in the South Carolinian tradition of political rebellion. That’s evident in his frequent votes against party leaders on major bills like the continuing resolution and debt ceiling deal this year, when Scott and his fellow South Carolina freshmen refused to support leadership despite late-night lobbying efforts to bring the delegation on board.

The definition of racism is:

rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Under no definition of racism could Tim Scott, Allen West, Herman Cain or the many other African American, Hispanic, Indian-American, candidates enthusiastically supported by Tea Party groups throughout the country be possible. As Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots said in reponse to Jessie Jackson's comments:

"It is unfortunate that at an event intended to honor the memory of an American hero who gave his life to ensure equal rights for every American, Jesse Jackson would choose to use the moment to make false statements which detract from the memory of Martin Luther King Jr.,"

This continued smearing of every day Americans is becoming more and more vile and is beginning to backfire on Democrats, as the truth of what they have become is growing more apparent to the general population. It is just a matter of time before the Democratic Party implodes, brought down by the acceptance and embracing of an ideology far from the mainstream of American values and principles. A party which accepts and promotes lies as a strategy to attain and maintain power can not and will not survive in America.

Early Thoughts

2011-08-26T16:19:00.000-04:00

Early Thoughts (part 1)

Even though it is a long time until the presidential election and as all the political pundits constantly remind us "a lot can happen between now and the election," I will gladly make a prediction, actually two.

The first is the easiest and the most obvious and if it does not come true it will be because something drastic and unprecedented (either good or bad) will take place in the next year,

Obama will not be re-elected, if he even runs.

I say this is obvious because America's economic situation for at least the next year is pretty much set in stone and it is not good. Although I tend to put little faith in the projections of those who forecast economic trends being as they are so often wrong, the forecasts for the coming year is like shooting fish in a barrel, they can't miss. All the forecasters are now projecting stagnant GDP growth at best and continued high unemployment with a very real chance of another recession which in reality if not technically we are already in.

There is only one way to change this downward trajectory and even that would probably not bare fruit fast enough to save Obama, though it's impact on the American electorate's psyche might. Obama would have to go Palin on the energy sector, "drill baby drill". If Obama unleashed the energy sector, oil, gas, and coal announcing some sort of face saving national emergency plan to allow for a boost in traditional energy exploration and exploitation it would, excuse the pun, energize the economy. Does anyone see that happening?

Additionally does anyone see Obama undoing Obamacare or Dodd-Frank or reigning in the EPA or any of the other regulatory monsters he has created which have business in America sitting on their hands waiting for the next shoe to drop on them?

Ain't gonna happen. Obama is a man of the Left and it would be an admission of failure to use the Right's playbook to bail himself out. Even if he tried as Clinton did "the era of big Government is over" the Democratic Party is now so dominated by progressives and far left ideologues that he would entirely loose his base.

Think about it, with all that he has done, Obamacare etc, his base is still angry at him for "compromising" with Republicans and not doing enough to institute their statist dreams. These so called "compromises" not only angered his base, they did not keep the Independents that helped elect him on his side, all the polls show that he has lost the support of Independent voters. He certainly did not loose them for not being left enough, he lost them because they believed (his history though not his rhetoric to the contrary)that he would be a "centrist". Policies not withstanding most Independents that voted for Obama were far less interested in policy than they were in some sort of "political harmony". Not only did Obama not deliver them "harmony" he enacted policies that they had ignored in the campaign which were far to the left of their general political views.

Some like to believe that if he tacks right in order to draw back in the Independents his base will stay with him because they have nowhere else to go. That is fine but why would the Independents return to a candidate that has already burned them once when there is a candidate (the Republican nominee) who is already closer to what they are looking for than the one they ran away from?

Back in 1979 when this almost identical scenario played out there were far fewer Independents, you were either a Democrat or a Republican. A large segment of the Independents of today are the Reagan Democrats, or their children, of that era, they may not be "right wingers" but they certainly are not progressive liberals. What could Obama possibly do in the next year that would attract this "middle" back to him? The answer is almost nothing. That is why he is left with the strategy of personal destruction of his opposition.

Ah can't you just feel that "Hope and Change" washing over you?

Who will be the next President...prediction two tomorrow.

Part two

I decided I needed to expand on why I believe Obama can not win beyond those I posted in part one below. I will post on who I believe will be the Republican nominee in my nest post. Regardless of who it is, that person will be the next president of the United States, and here are more reasons why.

Not So Main Stream Anymore

Most people on the right side of the political spectrum recognize that the media has a liberal bias and have a belief that few outside of the right see this bias and are therefore unduly influenced by the media. Although this had some validity in the past, the influence of the not so main stream media is quickly eroding and the proof of this can be found where it is always found, in the market.

In the past decade there has been a growing popularity and audience for FOX News, talk radio, and alternative media sources IE the internet. This coupled with the decaying share of viewers and consumers in the not so MSM is proof that the general population is less and less influenced by the media and is more and more searching out and digesting other sources of information and ideological input. It is also becoming more and more obvious that the less influence (market share) that the old media has the more extreme their ideological bias becomes which is creating a death spiral for the old media. The more influence they loose the more extreme they are which drives more and more consumers to seek out alternative sources. What makes this worse for old media and the liberal/progressive movement as a whole is that those who are the primary consumers of information are also those who are most politically involved and active. In affect the liberal media is driving away those most likely to cast votes in elections.

It is quickly reaching the point that the old media is basically just a facade that is only recognized as a powerful dispenser of information and influence within an ever decreasing base of followers primarily itself, while an ever growing portion of society ignores or disdains it. This media death spiral has only quickened during the Obama administration.

The Popularity Myth

Part of the narrative of the old media which is not really born out by facts is that Obama has been and remains a very popular president. First let's consider the election itself although Obama won the electoral college vote by a wide margin he did it by tiny margins in key states where he was able to tremendously outspend McCain. As I wrote just after the election:

Looking at the state by state comparisons of money spent it is obvious that Obama was able to pour money into key battleground states, far beyond the resources of McCain. Some Examples

In Florida Barack Obama spent a total of $36.7 million to McCain's $8.3 million a staggering $24.4 million dollar advantage or as a per vote basis Obama spent $8.86 for every vote he received while McCain spent $2.11 for each of his votes. That number is even more staggering when you consider that includes just 205,000 more votes for Obama out of over 8 million cast.

In North Carolina Obama outspent McCain $10.7 to $3.5 million or $5.04 to $1.66 for every vote they each received, basically a 3 to 1 margin to win a state by fewer than 14,000 votes or less than 1% of the votes cast.

In Virginia Obama outspent McCain $23.8 to $7.5 million or $12.15 to $4.35 per vote received.

In Ohio Obama outspent McCain $21.4 to $14.5 million or $7.90 to $5.80 per vote received.

The overwhelming money advantage allowed Obama to go after traditionally Republican states and compete. Take Indiana which borders his home state and where Obama was expected to have a very outside chance. Obama outspent McCain $11,800,000 to $428,895 or $8.63 to $0.32 for every vote received. This 25 to 1 advantage in spending helped Obama eke out a win by fewer than 26,000 votes or less than 1% of votes cast. With that large of an advantage in cash, an advantage that McCain had no chance of matching even if his campaign had been up to the challenge an outside chance at victory became a reality for Obama.

This is not to say that Obama would not have won with everything else this election cycle flowing his way, but it sure did not hurt. One is left to wonder though what would have happened if our next President had not broken his promise and taken public financing.

Or as the The Congressional Quarterly pointed out

It is in their spending rates, however, that the extent of the Obama campaign’s advantage over McCain is most dramatic.

Obama spent a total of $740 million, including $252 million since Oct. 1. McCain, who was limited to $84 million in spending after the Republican convention due to his participation in the public financing scheme, spent less than half that — $293 million total.

McCain was vastly outspent in the final two and a half weeks of the campaign, reporting $26.5 million in disbursements to Obama’s $146.6 million.

At a conference on election law held in Washington D.C. on Thursday, campaign finance expert and McCain general counsel Trevor Potter reflected on the moment when the enormity sunk in about what the Republican campaign was up against.

Potter called the Obama campaign’s 30-minute broadcast “infomercial” in the final week “a brilliant move,” adding, “I think it was at that moment when our . . . outside finance people and others realized they were dealing with a different league here.”

If you want an interesting contrast go back and watch that infomercial from the campaign and compare it to the president Obama has become and you can see why he was able to "fool some of the people, some of the time"

However even with this tremendous unprecedented spending and situation advantage Obama had, his popular vote victory was less than that of George H W Bush over Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Though Obama initially enjoyed a very strong "honeymoon" approval from the American public, it quickly dissolved when he began governing far to the left of his campaign rhetoric. The Tea Party for all the attacks on it by the once influential media sprung up within months of his inauguration based solely on his policy initiatives. Liberal media narratives not withstanding, the source for the Tea Party's name and it's initial catalyst was based on the rant of Rick Santili on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Note the description on the CNBC web site:

CNBC's Rick Santelli and the traders on the floor of the CME Group express outrage over the notion they may have to pay their neighbor's mortgage, particularly if they bought far more house than they could actually afford, with Jason Roney, Sharmac Capital.

Santili's outrage as well as the movement his rant inspired were the result of Obama's policies. As I have pointed out before, in both the Rasmussen (June 2009) and Gallup (December 2009)Obama has not enjoyed a monthly approval rating above 50% his first year in office. Worse, for Obama, he is underwater in approval ratings and has been so for some time on almost every important issue. Nowhere is this more illustrated and damaging to him than the recent Gallup poll which sows that 71% of Americans disprove of handling of the economy.

Then there is this

The poll finds that just 36% of New Yorkers approve of Obama's job performance -- a 17-point plummet from the 53% rating he received in May. Meanwhile, 63% of voters give the president a negative job performance rating.

This does not mean that Obama will loose New York, though that is not outside the realm of possibility anymore, but as the story points out:

"If the Democratic National Committee has to spend money competing in New York for the presidential victory next year, they are in big trouble,” Greenberg said. “Because if they are competing in New York, which is a two-to-one Democratic state, that does not bode well for them nationally."

Then there is this:

Following up on his rough results in the last Quinnipiac poll, a new Muhlenberg College poll puts Obama's approval rating in Pennsylvania at 35 percent

All of this is being largely ignored or downplayed in the old media, but as they say, "this is the situation on the ground" President Obama, media narrative to the not withstanding, has not really ever been and is growing less popular as time goes on. In a nutshell, the idea of Obama is far more popular than the man and certainly of his job performance.

The Playing Field Has Changed

Two very important developments occurred in 2010 both of which work against Obama, the census and the mid-term elections. First the census has shifted electoral votes from traditionally blue states to Red and Purple states. As an example New York will have two less electoral votes (and congressman) while Florida will have two more of both. Texas is picking up four. In a close race this could be critical but I suspect it will not be close at all.

The far more important development is the 2010 mid term elections. First the governors. Governors are important because they control the political apparatus in a state, a presidential candidate going into a state controlled by an opposing parties governor receives virtually no support and certainly no photo ops with the most influential man in the state. The following states were won by Obama in 2008 and had a Democratic Governor but now have a Republican Governor and their electoral votes.

Maine (2)
New Mexico (3)
New Jersey (12)
Pennsylvania (18)
Ohio (16)
Virginia (11)
Wisconsin (8)
Iowa (4)
Michigan (14)

The only state that McCain won that flipped from a Republican Governor to a Democrat was Missouri (8). This is not to say that having these changes guarantees the Republican candidate victory but it does help. More importantly these switches in state governors represents a dissatisfaction in Democratic governance which Obama so clearly represents. For all the commentary about how the Republican candidates are too extreme these states which voted for Obama in 2008 quickly changed directions.

Not only do the states indicate a sea change in American politics at the Executive level it is even more true in the State legislatures. Over 700 net state legislative seats switched from Democrat to Republican

2010 Party Control
State legislatures saw an extreme shift in power after the November 2010 elections. Republicans now control 25 state legislatures, nearly double the 14 they controlled prior to the election.1 Democrats experienced a similar shift but in the opposite direction, from control of 27 legislatures prior to the election to just 16 currently.2

Of the 6,102 legislative seats up for election in 453 states, 13 percent changed party hands. Republicans took 732 of the 794 seats that switched. In stark contrast, just 46 seats switched to Democratic control, while 11 went to third-party candidates. In 2008, only seven percent of the seats changed hands, with the gain enjoyed mostly by Democrats, and just seven states experienced changes greater than 10 percent. That jumped to 24 states in 2010.

Most of the takeover occurred in House4 chambers, where 624 seats changed party hands. Republicans took 585 seats previously held by Democrats or third-party lawmakers. Just 30 seats changed to Democratic control and 9 changed to third-party candidates.

Senate chambers experienced similar changes, with 147 of the 1,146 seats up for election changing to Republican control.

Again the most important aspect of this drastic switch is not just the control of government at the state level, it is an undeniable indication of the direction the country is headed. But where it is important on the process level is this, states formerly controlled by Democrats such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania are now controlled by Republicans who are enacting far reaching reforms to the election process. Many states are now enacting voter ID laws, diminishing the power of special interest in elections, IE unions and in general undoing decades of Democrat control of state governments.

Summary

For all of the above reasons and those I posted in part 1, there is little doubt in my mind that Obama is done, we just have to endure a year of nastiness. If the past few months have proven nothing else it is that the Tea Party Movement is the most influential force in American politics. The progressive and their allies in the media can scream and slander to their hearts content but the people are less and less buying it and the more they play their childish games the more devastating will be their defeat.

Early Thoughts Part three

A New Day

The first thing that must be understood in trying to discern how the Republican selection process is going to shake out is that it is a new day in the Republican Party. The Tea Party Movement for all intent and purpose is going to be the driving factor. It is not as if the TPM will simply anoint a winner like in the old days when party bosses made back room deals and a nominee emerged. But the Tea Party will be the single most influential voice and force in the selection process.

Which brings us to the first point of discussion, Michelle Backmann. If Michelle Backmann is the Tea party candidate, how come she is not doing better among Republican voters in the polls? The simple answer is that she is not the Tea Party candidate, nobody is....yet. The reason that Michelle Backmann is so identified with the Tea Party is that she is head of the Tea Party Caucus in the House. How did this happen? She created the Tea Party Caucus and declared herself its head. It is not as if the Tea Party asked her to do this or even agreed with her doing it, as a matter of fact among the Tea Party there was and still is much disagreement whether or not they really want a caucus in the House and Senate claiming to represent them. Michelle Backmann saw an opportunity and took it, she was not chosen for it.

I would say that Michelle Backmann was the candidate whom, when she entered the race, most represented the anti-establishment wing of the party. Many people respect her for her uncompromising adherence to small government principles but I suspect that few consider her the best candidate in the race. She will probably stay in the 10 to 20% range as long as she stays in which very well could be until the end when whatever delegates she gets may be important.

It is noteworthy that Backmann has chosen not to participate in the Florida straw poll next month. Most see this as a mistake but I believe it is an indication that she knows her weakness and does not want to be a big looser here and would rather feed off her Iowa straw poll win as long as possible. Romney is also not participating probably because he did not want to offend Iowa Republicans because he did not participate in their straw poll and so has made the decision not to participate in straw polls at all.

Backmann I believe will be in it for awhile unlike the other two Tea Party favorites who have been in since the beginning Rick Santorum and Herman Caine both of whom are well liked but really don't stand much of a chance and may stay in until the Iowa caucuses but not much further.

John Huntsman is a non factor and will get very liitle support except from the Main Stream Media.

Newt is a non factor but he probably will stay in for awhile just so that he can stay in the public spot light which is good for the Republicans since he is the most dynamic in the debates.

Ron Paul is always an important factor because he has a very strong base of support and good financing but there is no chance that he will be the Republican nominee. Paul like Backmann could be influential if the nominee is not decided before the convention, unlikely, and he is the most likely to attempt a third party bid, but this is doubtful simply because he would not want to destroy his son's future political career.

Of the remaining declared candidates that leaves Perry and Romney. Pundits believe that all the so called "far right" candidates will divide the vote leaving the nomination open for Romney. However the first Rasmussen poll conducted after Perry entered the race does not reflect this. Perry quickly took a commanding lead over both Romney and Backmann.

The thinking is that Backmann will win in Iowa, Romney will win in New Hampshire and Nevada and Perry will have to win in South Carolina in order to keep his candidacy viable going into the important Florida primary. I do not believe that is going to happen.

Perry will win Iowa. In the coming months Republican voters, Iowa included, will recognize that Perry is a far superior candidate and would be a far better president than Backmann. Backmann will continue to have a strong core of committed followers but nearly all the undecided and other right leaning voters will coalesce around Perry and as the Caine, Santorum, Gindrich voters start to look for a winner, they will go to Perry more than to Backmann.

The one tactical mistake that Romney made by not participating in the Florida straw poll next month is that it leaves it open for Perry to win. The Florida straw poll is different than Iowa and an organization like Romney's could still do well, but I suspect that Perry will win it. If that happens it not only greatly diminishes Backmann's momentum coming out of her Iowa straw poll win it also adds to Perry's reputation as a front runner.

When the primaries begin in earnest next year if Perry wins Iowa and South Carolina and Romney wins New Hampshire and Nevada then the big showdown will be in Florida and money will not be an issue for either of them. Both candidates have a lot going for them in Florida, Romney has a superior and well established campaign organization. He also has a large northeast transplant constituency. But Perry has a couple of advantages that should not only neutralize Romney they will probably bury him.

Perry will have the Tea Party almost completely behind him at that point and the Tea Party in Florida is growing and growing more dominate in state politics, can you say Marco Rubio and Allen West. This will by far offset Romney's superior conventional campaign, not only in Florida but pretty much everywhere, it is a new day in Republican politics. The other advantage that Perry has that will greatly help in Florida and perhaps New Hampshire as well, is Rudy Gulliani.

For those who may not know, Rudy and Rick Perry are very close friends in fact Perry endorsed Gulliani for president in 2008. If Gulianni does not run for president himself, still an if, he will be campaigning vigorously for Perry which will in part offset the "transplant" factor. If Gulianni gets in the race himself he would eat more into Romney's support than Perry's.

If Perry wins the Florida primary which I believe he will then Romney will be in the same position he was in 2008 on the defensive trying to generate enthusiasm for his candidacy.

But there is no enthusiasm for Romney not in 2008 and certainly not in 2012. All the enthusiasm
in the Republican Party has been and will continue to be with the Tea Party and the Tea Party will be with Perry because he is the most conservative candidate with a chance to win. He a;so has "creds" with the TPM and Romney does not. I believe Romney could win the presidency too, but first he would have to win the nomination not with but against a highly energized Tea Party movement which looks at him as the status quo and the status quo will not win the Republican nomination in 2012.

But what if Palin or Ryan or Christie or Gulianni,or,or,or get in. I'll cover that in part four (when and if it happens)

Dancing in the center

2011-08-14T10:41:00.000-04:00

What is the center?

Every presidential election season regardless of the candidates or the particular issues facing the nation a certain political dance occurs. The dance is well known and well choreographed by the political handlers regardless of the party. It goes something like this.

During the primaries candidates tend to posture themselves in order to appeal to their "base". The "base" of each party is comprised primarily of those persons most involved in the political process, the most informed, the most politically active and generally the most committed to whichever end of political spectrum that the party represents IE Democrat-Liberalism/Progressive and Republican-Conservative. However if you belong to the "base" of a political party the other parties "base" is simply referred to as the "fringe".

The reason presidential candidates attempt to appeal to their "base" is obvious. The candidate needs to win the base in order to win the primaries in order to win the nominations since generally speaking the "base" turns out in proportionally greater numbers during primaries than during the general election when more less passionate voters, vote. This is the fist step of the dance.

The second step is for the winning candidate to quickly unite all the various opponents and their supporters within his own party which he has spent the last two years bashing in order that they will support him. This usually is not too difficult being as the ideological divide between the two parties is still such that few "base" voters for either party would ever support the other parties candidate. At worst dissatisfied "base" voters will "sit it out". These folks just take a seat against the wall and sulk as they resentfully watch the final steps to the dance taking place under the spot lights in the center of the dance floor.

The final steps to our dance is truly in the center, this is where the two candidates having secured their "base" as best as they can now begin to reach out and try to appeal to the so called "political center". These are the people who may lean towards one side of the political spectrum but who are not very active in politics except when they vote during the general election. They are not overly "committed" so they can be swayed.

Getting non "base" voters to turn out for a candidate is the key to presidential elections. In 2008 Obama was able to generate excitement and action from a usually dormant segment of the electorate, the youth vote. This in part fueled his election.

The 2008 election was unique in one very important aspect, it was one of the few presidential elections ever and the first since 1952 in which neither the incumbent president or vice-president was a candidate, it was wide open. Nobody was running on the record of the previous administration good or bad.

This of course will not be true in 2012, Obama will either have to run on his record or as seems the strategy now he will have to simply try to destroy his opponent in the eyes of the "center". Or as a Washington Examiner editorial put it:

It's a long road to the White House in 2012, however, and regardless who becomes the GOP nominee, that candidate will face a formidable opponent willing to do most anything to win. Emphasis on "anything."

But regardless of the strategy, the most important question is, where is the center ? Basically for my entire life conventional wisdom has been that America is a center right country which all polling data consistently confirms.

This ideological make up does not however translate to party affiliation. Some self identified conservatives are Democrats or Independents and this is why despite the fact that conservatives are the majority in an ideological context, Democrats have a slight lead in party affiliation, Putting aside conservative Democrats who by all accounts are dwindling in influence if not in fact actual numbers, the key it would seem is where do the majority of Independents fit ideologically. The very fact that so many people identify themselves as conservative yet Democrats lead in party identification shows that a majority of Independents lean conservative. In other words more conservatives have left the Republican Party or are unwilling to be identified with the Republican Party for one reason or another allowing the Democrats to have an advantage. This it would seem is a problem that the Republicans created by not adequately identifying and maintaining their core constituency-conservatives.

Proof of this comes from the Tea Party Movement which the media loves to identify as extreme right wing or ultra conservative. In a recent article in American Thinker titled Dems' Risky Tea Party Smear Strategy, the author makes this observation from Gallup Poll numbers:

As initial survey data showed (click here), a sizable portion of the Tea Party movement is non-Republican. A Gallup poll from March 2010 found that 50% of "Tea Party identifiers" were Republicans while 43% identified as independents and 7% as Democrats. That's a perfect 50:50 split.

Obviously the Tea Party Movement is considered conservative though I, as one of the 43% of the movement who is not a Republican, would describe it as a constitutional movement rather than a conservative movement. Regardless the fact remains that the political entity most identified and depicted as most conservative is comprised with nearly half independents.

It is also interesting to note that depending on which poll you believe, people who identify themselves as Tea Party members are between 18-26% of the electorate. Taking the low end of this number it shows that roughly 20% of Americans are members of the Tea party which is about the same number as identify themselves as liberal.

So in effect the "fringe" of conservatism in America is as large as the entirety of liberal America. To put it another way, fully half of the dominant ideology in America belongs to the Tea Party and nearly half of them are independents.

All of which ought to make everyone question what is really mainstream in America and it certainly is not the media.

Finding the Center

There are of course many reason not to be identified with either party such as "pro-life" Democrats or "pro-choice" Republicans whose commitment to a particular issue will not permit them to be identified with a party they do not support on a single issue. Rather than being identified with a party on an issue they feel strongly about they simply become independents.

With apologies to Rush Limbaugh I do not believe that the majority of independents in America are the "wishy washy middle". In fact I believe that the majority of independents fall into three categories all of which are more right of center than left.

The first group is disaffected Republicans who have given up on the Republican Party for not living up to the parties foundation principles, this would probably be a majority of that 43% of independents in the Tea Party.

The second group are former Democrats such as myself (and such other defectors as Ronald Reagan and Rick Perry) that recognize that the Democratic Party for all practical purposes on the national level at least is the Progressive Party and over the past several generations has totally turned on it's head the principles that it was founded on by Thomas Jefferson.

The third group probably the smallest of the three but growing are Libertarians, which ironically most closely represent the foundation principles of.the Democratic Party of Thomas Jefferson.

I would suggest that the second and third groups above along with many single issue voters are in the group who self identify themselves as "moderate" knowing that they are not liberal yet not wanting to be identified with "conservatives". Let me give you an example of why a person who by all accounts would be considered a conservative would not want to be identified as one.

Recently Rick Perry caused a controversy when he said:

"Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."

Now there is no doubt that Rick Perry is a Christian, a social conservative and as a personal and a political matter is opposed to gay marriage. The very same article points out that as governor of Texas he signed an amendment to the Texas state Constitution outlawing gay unions. Yet conservatives bashed him for the statement, a statement which is totally consistent with the original intent of the Constitution of the United States which conservatives claim they wish to protect.

As Andrew McCarthy put it on a similar issue:

That is the way our system is supposed to work. The federal government has a few discrete areas of national concern to regulate. The rest belong to the states and the people, to regulate or not as they see fit. In a free society, that means decisions on most matters of community life get made by the community that has to live with them — and pay for them. In a pluralistic society, that means we could have 50 different ways of doing things — meaning that if you find yourself in a state that is foolish enough to mandate the purchase of health insurance subsidized by taxes or penalties, you are free to move to some state that isn’t.

The inability in a federalist system to impose a “one size fits all” solution on every choice decompresses a society — which is now a society of over 300 million people with very different ideas about how we should live. It promotes social harmony by allowing people to gravitate to the communities where life best suits them.

I believe many things but one of the things I believe most is that it is not my right or duty to force my beliefs on others. I have no problem trying to convince others to my point of view that is why I post what I do on this blog. It is difficult enough to change peoples minds less alone trying to force a change in someones heart. Often times this is what conservatives do, they do as the left does, they attempt to use the constitution to enforce their beliefs on others when in fact the Constitution was designed for precisely the opposite.

Andrew McCarthy again:

I confess to thinking we’ve lost our way. The Framers gave us a federal constitution for a confident, self-determining people — people who could be trusted to make sensible choices, to govern themselves through legislation rather than be strait-jacketed in the uncompromising logic of law.

I happen to think gay marriage is an oddity — a category error that misconstrues the concept and institution of marriage. But I also appreciate that many people of good will (as opposed to people pushing a corrosive, anti-establishment agenda) would permit it out of an admirable desire to treat homosexuals with compassion and accord them some of the legal privileges (tax treatment, property rights, inheritance, etc.) attendant to marriage.

I’m not crazy about the idea, but neither am I threatened by it. I don’t believe there are enough gay people who will want to marry that the institution of marriage will be meaningfully imperiled. Public opinion remains decidedly against gay marriage, and most states will never permit it. I don’t see the harm in allowing the few states that would vote to permit it do just that — as long as other states may ban it in accordance with their own public policy, and as long as it is not a stealth invalidation of sincerely held religious beliefs. Gay marriage should never mean that Catholic adoption services must place babies with gay couples or cease operating.

Some respond, “Well, if you permit gay marriage, what’s to stop polygamy?” But if X then Y is a legal argument. We are a body politic, not the slaves of remorseless chains of legal reasoning. Legislation that permits one set of arrangements doesn’t require us to take the next step on the slippery slope.

Abortion is a heinous moral wrong because it takes human life. It is no less a taking of human life if conception is the result of rape or incest. Yet our society, fully understanding why it is revolted by abortion, favors these exceptions. And it wants abortion banned, but it does not want doctors and women prosecuted. These may not be logical distinctions, but they are sensible ones. They are accommodations that enable us to live harmoniously without agreeing. And they would prevent the vast majority of abortions.

If you want the federal constitution to ban something, then amend it. A constitutional amendment is not a prohibition imposed by the federal government, for the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government are not the same thing. The Constitution is the compact of the people setting forth the terms on which we are bound together as a nation. In essence, it cannot be amended unless the provision in question garners super-majority support (two-thirds) in Congress, and then super-duper majority assent (three-fourths) in the states.

If banning state health-care mandates, gay marriage, and abortion, or other conservative policy prescriptions, can surmount those high hurdles, then they truly are reflective of the national will — of what it means to be an American. That is what is minimally necessary before they should be imposed as a condition of living in the United States. Same for the Left’s agenda. If a policy preference can’t meet that demanding test, then by all means continue trying to convince people to see it your way. But in the meantime, these are matters for the states to decide for themselves — and we ought to be confident that our fellow Americans will make rational choices, even if they differ from the choices we would make.

For some time I have considered myself a moderate, even though most people knowing my views would label me a conservative. I do not wish to be "lumped" in with people who wish to force their views on others even though I may agree with them . It is the left however that not only wishes to force their views on others but is willing to use the power of the state to do so.

In my mind the truly conservative path as well as the traditional liberal path are basically the same path. Yet both parties which claim to represent these roads have veered so far from the center that anyone attempting to dance in the center is considered "fringe".

The founder of the Democratic Party is also one of the most revered personages of the right yet both the right and the left in this country have totally lost site of the simplicity of his message which were best summed up by these words.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Thomas Jefferson

2011-08-06T20:49:00.001-04:00

Via-

"Notable Quotes"

2011-07-31T13:58:00.000-04:00

"We can’t follow the plain language of the Constitution. Doing that would unacceptably constrain the behavior of elites. Instead, the Constitution must be interpreted by an elite priesthood that will insure it means whatever the elites want it to mean."

Glenn Reynolds

Toons

2011-06-10T07:18:00.000-04:00

Problems with creation

2011-06-05T10:45:00.000-04:00

Over the past century and intensifying over the past couple of decades, the progressive left has gained control of important societal institutions, most notably education and the media. Having this control over these two important communication centers in society allows them to create narratives in order to advance their agendas. It does not matter that often times the "spin" of these narratives does not quite line up with reality, reality is not all that important to progressives, power is their goal.

One narrative that has grown more and more prevalent in this new progressive driven propaganda infected society has to do with "creationist". The spin goes something like this, if you believe in creation or intelligent design you are some sort of ignorant Neanderthal. The mere belief in Divine creation makes a person's intelligence not only suspect but open to public ridicule and derision.

Part of the problem is due to a doctrinaire belief in creation by "fundamentalist" religious adherents in all faiths but is especially directed at Christian fundamentalist. A God given common sense defying and unyielding doctrine of belief in a literal interpretation of scriptures (and we are talking Old Testament here) is easily mocked in the face of overwhelming proof that the story of creation as portrayed in scripture can not and probably never was intended to taken as a literal time line for creation.

This disconnect from reality is easily pointed out by snarky detractors "where are the dinosaurs in the Bible...huh?" Well Christians, where are the dinosaurs in the bible? The truth is that they are not there but they certainly were here. The story of creation as we read it in the Bible can not possibly be the "Word" of God in a literal sense but rather analogical. This rigid adherence to a doctrine not born out by truth is not only easily mocked, it is understandably so. The dinosaurs are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a disconnect from reality with a strict interpretation of the scriptures. The truth is that most of this confusion could easily be rectified with a proper reading and correct translation of the "Word". But that is for another day.

Putting aside that much of the scorn towards the "religious" view of creation is self inflected due to doctrinaire rigidity on the part of believers, what about the now popular portrayal of "creationist" as fringe nut jobs?

This is a perfect illustration of where the progressive narrative is not only not born out by reality, it is so far from reality as to be fringe itself. Gallup just released a poll which reinforces polling data going back decades, The poll finds that 92% of Americans believe in God. Do you think that the vast majority of these people who believe in God, do not believe in Divine Creation? That somehow they believe in a God that did not create the Universe? To put it another way do you believe that all of these "Believers" do not believe in evolution or dinosaurs? The truth is that despite the progressive narrative, the majority of people (I raise my hand) believe both in Divine creation and dinosaurs and some form of evolution.

The vast majority of Americans and a sizable majority of the world's population belong to three religious faiths, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. All three of these religions along with other less well known faiths unapologetically believe in "intelligent design", the majority of all people in the world are ignorant "creationist". But listening to popular media and academic elitist you would be left with the impression that anyone who believes that God, Allah, Jehovah created the universe was some fringe cultist sect of humanity worthy the contempt that they vilely spew on the majority of the human race and their fellow citizens,

As to the intelligence of believers, I would only point out that for centuries the great advances in the sciences, engineering, philosophy, the arts, politics and indeed all mankind has been led by those who believe in intelligent design, Divine creation. It is only recently, with the advent of Progressive ideology that would make man God, that man's hubris would claim to know "In the Beginning"

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.