Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The threat of our rising debt

According to the latest figures from the DeficitAid.com web site, the Federal Debt is a bit greater than 12 TRILLION DOLLARS. That assumes you consider 91 BILLION DOLLARS a bit. Our national debt exceeds 12,091,600,000,000.

Even more interesting, or should I say appalling, is that the debt is increasing at an accelerating rate of approximately 1 million dollars every 9 seconds. I just did the math on this number and unless I am wrong, and you are all invited to do the math, that amounts to about 400 MILLION DOLLARS EVERY HOUR. Putting this in perspective, the national debt is increasing at a rate of more than one dollar per hour for every citizen of the United States EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY OF EVERY YEAR! Awake, asleep, working or recreating, we are all becoming responsible for another dollar to support our FEDERAL governments spending habits.

That may not seem like much on an individual basis, after all, it’s only $8760 per year, per individual, but you have to remember, this is the increase in the debt. The principal debt of more than 12 TRILLION DOLLARS is not even considered in this equation. I am also not considering the interest on the outstanding debt.

Just to offer another example, while I have been writing this, the Federal Debt has increased by more than 100 MILLION DOLLARS.

We are all responsible for this debt and when you think about the growth in government and the resulting growth in regulations, the debt will only grow and the efficiency of the private sector will continue to decline. The burden has already become crippling and will rapidly destroy our country. Forget about outside threats, the real enemy is our government an it’s inane desire to help us help ourselves. When are we going to learn? When are we going to realize that although we are the most educated society in the world we are educating ourselves into bankruptcy?

Saturday, November 14, 2009

ACORN update

I am always amazed at the extent the corrupt will go to prove that they are innocent and in fact doing good. Unfortunately, as I grow older, I find it less surprising that the levels of corruption are accepted by members of our legislature who also happen to receive large campaign contributions from these organizations. One of the most corrupt organizations I have ever encountered is the spider web of intertwined ACORN/SEIU “not for profit” entities. They have shown themselves again and again to be absolutely corrupt, yet they have the gall to cry foul when they are exposed and have their funding removed. Guess it just goes to show that there is no honor amongst the thieves.

From ACORN:

ACORN has filed suit against the Federal Government for defunding them. According to ACORN's lawyers at the far-left Center for Constitutional Rights, the congressional funding ban constitutes a "bill of attainder" -- an act of the legislature declaring a person(s) guilty of a crime without trial.


"It's not the job of Congress to be the judge, jury and executioner," CCR lawyer Jules Lobel moaned as he equated the House's act of fiscal responsibility with the death penalty.

"It is outrageous to see Congress violating the Constitution for purposes of political grandstanding," CCR Legal Director Bill Quigley seethed without a shred of irony.

Personally, I think ACORN, SEIU and all their various subsidiary organizations of corruption should not only be defunded permanently, but the executives operating this den of thieves should be charged criminally. If the Federal government can go on a spree of actions against Wall Street companies because they received bailout money, the Fed should certainly be able to defund the web of ACORN/SEIU organizations which not only steal from the government, but prey on the poor they claim to protect as well.



From Michelle Malkin:


It took decades to build up its massive coffers and intricate web of affiliates across the country. It will take months and years to untangle the entire operation. And it will take time, money and relentless sunshine to dismantle the government-subsidized partisan racket.
ACORN can never be "reformed." It is constitutionally corrupt.

I say it is well worth the effort, no matter the time or the cost.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Days of expanding deficits, will they never end?

Will we, the citizens of the US never learn? Are we going to allow ourselves to be sentenced to the insanity perpetuated upon us by our elected officials until our country completely breaks down? How long are we going to abide by the absolute fiscal irresponsibility continually approved by our government officials who believe so strongly in the power of incumbency and the short memory span of their constituents that they can do anything they choose without recourse?

I am speaking specifically about the budget deficit our Federal government is passing on to the tax payer. I recall during the 2008 election cycle that candidate Obama made big news with his complaints about how during his last year in office President Bush was such a bad manager of the nation that he allowed the federal deficit to grow to the amazing sum of $162 Billion dollars. I agree that this is a staggering sum and it is ridiculously irresponsible, but this was at the end of the 8 years of mismanagement.

Today the treasury department announced that the federal deficit for the month of October 2009 -- ONE MONTH -- exceeded $176 BILLION. ONE MONTH! Let me repeat this, because it is really important, in ONE MONTH, the federal deficit for monies spent by the Obama administration EXCEEDED the entire most expensive year of the Bush administration.

In his first fiscal year in office, the Obama administration took the American citizens into the hole to the tune of $1.42 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! Yes, that is TRILLION with a capital “T”. To make matters worse, the total deficit for the 2010 fiscal year is expected to top 1.5 TRILLION. Again that is a “T” as in Trillion, as in more money than each citizen can count if they spend their entire lives counting.

Just as a point of reference, 1.42 Trillion was the largest deficit recorded by a federal administration since the end of WW II in 1945 and we are project to top it again this year.

Of course the President has promised to deliver a deficit reduction plan as part of his 2011 budget, but he also plans to push through the health care plan and the cap and trade bill, which, regardless of what he may say, will cost the citizens of this, our United States, additional Trillions (yes again the “T” word) over the next ten years.

So, I ask again, will we never learn? As my friend Bob keeps saying, I think it's time to throw the bastards out -- all of them! It's time the start this govenment over.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The General welfare of the United States --

That's it. That is all the constitutional power that Congress has. I know this because the people who wrote the Constitution stuck on two pesky amendments. I like to call them the "And we really mean it!" amendments. Here they are:Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The exact wording of the 10th Amendment is important. Here, the "United States" clearly means the federal government. The powers of the United States (according to the Constitution) are not the same as the powers of its citizens ("the people"), nor are they the same as the powers of the individual states.So the phrase, in Article I, Section 8, "general Welfare of the United States" only applies to the inner workings of the federal government. The Framers could not have made the point any clearer. Pelosi and Hoyer have no power over the citizens' health care because they are given that power nowhere in the Constitution. The words "health" or "health care" appear nowhere in the Constitution. So according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the "right" of health care must be guaranteed and paid for by each individual state.

Perhaps, one day our representatives will understand that General Welfare does not mean WELFARE. It never has. "General welfare" is mentioned only twice in the Constitution. The phrase appears once in the Preamble, but the Preamble gives the legislative branch no authority whatsoever.

"General welfare" is also mentioned once in Article I, Section 8. Here is what it actually means in that section:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Notice that the Constitution doesn't say the "general welfare of the citizens of the United States." It says "general Welfare of the United States." This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project -- including health care.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Peter Ferrara comments on the election

My friend and political mentor, Peter Ferrara, wrote this article for spectator Magazine on the eve of the election Tuesday. It is a very compelling article and I have resp[onded to it as a comment at the end. Plese join in the conversation and comment as you see fit. R----
The Republicans Underestimate their Strength By Peter Ferrara

In last year’s campaign, the one true thing Obama said to his critics was, “The political ground is changing under your feet.” But what is not sufficiently recognized is that is going on again, right now, in the opposite direction.

That is what yesterday’s elections showed. And what yesterday’s political earthquake revealed about the landscape is that the biggest miscalculation going on right now is that the Republicans underestimate their own strength. As a result, they may fail to take maximum advantage of the political tsunami that is coming in 2010, just building to what is to come in 2012. For conservatives, this is a time of greater opportunity than 1977.

The Virginia Smackdown

Virginia in modern times had been a conservative Republican state, particularly in elections for national offices. But led by a badly confused Northern Virginia local business community that thought it saw advantage in runaway state taxes and spending, the state began trending Democrat a decade ago, electing two straight Democrat Governors, and two Democrat U.S. Senators. Just last year, the state went for Barack Obama by 6 points.

That trend was reversed yesterday in a Republican landslide winning every statewide office for only the second time in history. Republican Bob McDonnell won the Governor’s race by 18 percentage points, reflecting a swing of almost 24 points towards the Republicans in just one year. In other words, about one-fourth of Virginia voters swung away from President Obama to the Republicans in that year.

Moreover, young, conservative, grassroots leader Ken Cuccinelli won the Attorney General’s office by a similar margin. Cuccinelli won the hearts of local taxpayer activists 6 years ago by leading a shoestring revolt against a well-heeled, multimillion dollar, state establishment referendum for a sales tax increase. Incumbent Democrat Mark Warner, now a U.S. Senator, and the Northern Virginia business machine, both went down in flames to Cuccinelli’s rag tag grassroots irregulars, outspent more than 10 to 1. Cuccinelli is also the political leader of the state’s pro-life forces, pro-family groups, and social conservatives.

What makes this so significant is that Virginia has a one term limit for Governor, and Attorney General is a traditional jumping off point for gubernatorial candidates, as it was for McDonnell. The youthful Cuccinelli is consequently a rapidly rising star nationally for conservatives. CPAC, take note, this guy is one of our own.

Republicans should make peace now with the Northern Virginia business community by supporting the extensive road building program they want to relieve traffic congestion, financing it out of general revenues by restricting the growth of other state spending. McDonnell won their support this year with this position, and there is no reason Republicans should not now implement this vigorously.

Don’t let the Obama spinmeisters tell you Obama had nothing to do with this race. He was all over it in mailings, ads, even appearances appealing to the black vote in Tidewater. The swing in this state represents the grassroots anger with Obama’s extremism.

Running the Table

Barack Obama won last year in New Jersey, one of the most solidly Democrat controlled states, with 57% of the vote. As of this writing, incumbent Democrat Governor John Corzine has 45% of the vote, to 49% for Republican challenger Chris Christie, a lead of almost 100,000 votes. That is a swing of 12% towards the Republicans in just one year, in this ultraliberal state. Christie is now the projected winner.

This is a huge defeat for Barack Obama. He campaigned heavily with Corzine, which he didn’t have to do. That communicates massive overconfidence by Obama. Precisely while Obama barnstormed the state, Christie passed Corzine and grew his lead. Bottom line: if Obama can’t make it here, he can’t make it anywhere. Sure, Corzine produced terrible failures for New Jersey as Governor. But these election results represent voter wrath against Obama as well, even in this state.

Indeed, Christie won despite a third party challenger from the right. Even with that, Corzine and Obama could not win. In fact, voters overall turned down Corzine/Obama leadership 54% to 45%, a landslide loss for the Democrats. Christie showed just how Republicans have to deal with such third party challenges. It is their responsibility to win over the voters. It is not the responsibility of those challengers to stand down so the Republican can win. Remember, Reagan faced a third party challenger in 1980 from a moderate Republican, John Anderson. Reagan still swept to a landslide win over an incumbent Democrat President, by presenting a positive conservative vision Americans could believe in. That is the winning model.

With Mike Bloomberg’s reelection, New York City has now been governed by Republican mayors for 20 years. That shows New Yorkers are more tough minded than the unthinking Democrat party machine captives of Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, who are proving incapable of self-government as their cities literally melt away beneath their feet.

Hang Together or Hang Separately

Perhaps the only disappointment for Republicans yesterday may be as of this writing the results from the 23rd Congressional District in New York, which Barack Obama did carry last year. Readers of this column are no stranger to Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, who I first rang the bell for in this space weeks ago.

The Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava was way too far out there for any Republican to support. She ran on the ticket of the Working Families Party just last year, an extremist socialist front group. She had ties to ACORN and the SEIU. She was endorsed by the far left extremist Daily Kos. She had a voting record in the state Assembly that was so pro-tax that the Democrat, Bill Owens, was running ads against her on her tax increase votes.

Scozzafava’s true colors were obvious long ago, but she rubbed it in the faces of those Republicans who supported her nomination by conspiring with the Obama White House to endorse the Democrat in the race after withdrawing, blasting Hoffman’s middle America supporters as the extremists. What this reveals is a fundamental problem with the New York state Republican party, and its very viability. Scozzafava was nominated at four local nominating conventions by local party bigwigs. Any Republican who thinks the best way to win is to nominate ACORN, SEIU, union puppet Republicans needs to become a Democrat. There is no role or function for such people in the Republican party. If that is what the New York state Republican party thinks, then the state party should just shut down and let the Conservative Party carry the fight against the Democrats.

But apparently some of Scozzafava’s local Republican supporters would rather vote for a Democrat than see an upstart, conservative, Reaganite challenger win. So as of this writing, the Democrat Bill Owens is ahead of Hoffman by a couple of thousand votes. To those small minded locals who insist on loyalty to a left winger like Scozzafava, I say what Reagan said in his famous 1975 CPAC speech: let them go their own way. As Reagan showed, for reasons of practical politics as well as principle, Republicans need to fly under banners of bold colors, not pale pastels. If that offends some badly confused nominal Republicans, then let them join the socialist party, as Scozzafava did. A Republican tent big enough to include Republicans with Scozzafava’s record can’t stand of its own weight. The rest of us need to fight for what we believe in, and win on what works, as we did in Virginia and New Jersey.

This race would have been won if the state party hadn’t been so foolish as to nominate someone as far left as Scozzafava to begin with. RNC Chairman Michael Steele needs to get involved here and bust some heads in the New York Republican Party, including Al D’Amato’s head. This sort of foolishness by the New York party is discrediting Republicans nationwide. It is encouraging counterproductive third party movements nationally that will just divide the anti-Obama vote, and break an emerging, conservative, Republican, Reaganite majority into two competing minorities, with the Obama left wing extremists remaining dangerously in power.

The Democrats’ New World Government

Let me give you an example of the left wing extremism that is causing voters to flee the Democrats already this year, and will only get geometrically worse every year through 2012. Next month, the world is scheduled to meet in Copenhagen to sign a new global climate change treaty. Lord Christopher Monckton, who served as a legal advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher accurately explains the draft of the treaty, saying: “I have read the treaty and what it says is this: That world government is going to be created. The word, government, actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a climate debt….” Lord Monckton notes that the words election or democracy or vote or ballot appear nowhere in the treaty.

The treaty specifically establishes a new international body called The Conference of the Parties (COP), which holds authority to administer and enforce the treaty. As the Washington Times explained on October 27, the treaty establishes a “global carbon budget” for each country, with authority for “the treaty’s governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon” within any country party to the treaty.

The enforcement arm underneath the COP is the Copenhagen Climate Facility, which the treaty says is necessary because in order to save the planet, “the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally.” The Facility will consequently hold as enforcement powers, “such legal capacity as is necessary for the exercise of its functions and the protection of its interests.” If a country is found in violation of the agreement, the Facility will have the power to “undertake the measures necessary to bring the country back into compliance,” as the Washington Times explains.

The Washington Times explains further,

“The Facility will be run by an executive committee, the membership of which ‘may include representation from relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental stakeholders.’ So left wing pressure groups, animal rights fanatics, tree huggers, Al Gore or any other part of the environmentalist fringe would be eligible for executive committee membership.”

This new world government is going to require a lot of funding. So the United States and other countries are required under the treaty to provide financing of $800 billion over 5 years to COP, with additional funding requirements to be assessed as needed. Indeed, the COP will have explicit world taxing authority over all treaty signatories, which would include the U.S. if we ratify the treaty. Moreover, once ratified, the treaty provides that a country cannot withdraw from it without consent from all the other countries under the treaty. Since America would be the biggest paying country, and most others would be drawing on that money, such consent will never be given even if a future President and Congress want to withdraw.

Is President Obama going to sign this treaty on behalf of America? Is he going to stand up to the world’s leftists and refuse?

Signing the treaty would effectively be a violation of the oath of office, because it would turn ultimate governing authority over America to an international governing body, disenfranchising American voters, and suspending their constitutional rights. This is so ridiculously and utterly extreme that any Democrat Senator that supports ratification of it, from Chuck Schumer in New York to John Kerry in Massachusetts to Carl Levin in Michigan to Barbara Boxer in California, will have no prayer of reelection. But are the Democrats going to desert the international left and say no to the climate change treaty, just when the rest of the world is lining up behind it? What will the environmentalists say?

Lyndon Baines Johnson

The problem for the Democrats is that the results of their left wing extremist policies, from domestic policies involving taxes, deficits, government spending, the dollar, health care, welfare, etc., to foreign policy involving Iran’s nuclear weapons, Israel, Afghanistan, Russia, to national defense involving Obama’s nuclear disarmament, missile defense cuts, and weakened defenses in general, are going to get geometrically worse and worse. That means their political prospects are going to get geometrically worse and worse, month by month.

Sooner or later, the Democrats will start to blame Obama, and turn on him. That is why I am predicting right now that President Obama is more likely to not be on the ticket in 2012, than he is to be reelected. For Democrats who want to laugh this off, I have three words: Lyndon Baines Johnson.

He had a much bigger win in 1964 than Obama had in 2008.

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

VAT Revisited -- An alternative

As the Democratically controlled house and Senate root around for new methods of raising revenue without violating the Presidents promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, they have begun to visit the European idea of a Value Added Tax (VAT). The VAT is a tax, much like a national sales tax on each point in the manufacturing and sales process. In theory, this tax makes some sense if it replaces the national and state income taxes and current state sales taxes. Unfortunately, the house and senate are proposing to add the VAT as an additional tax. This will truly cripple business, industry and the pocketbooks of all Americans, middle class included.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. This alternative is easy to incorporate nationally, eliminates the avoidance of taxes by the underground economy and actually puts more money into the pockets of business, industry and all American citizens. This tax will also encourage saving rather than spending.

An additional benefit would be the automatic payment of taxes at the point of sale, so there will be no need to file a tax return. America would therefore eliminate the need for the IRS and potentially save more than 100 Billion annually.

What is this wonderful tax? How is such a thing possible? The tax is the Automatic Payment transaction Tax (APT tax) and it can be incorporated into the economy with equipment already in operation across the width and breadth of the country.

The APTT (
http://www.apttax.com/) is a small, uniform tax on all economic transactions which replaces the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, the state income tax, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes and sales taxes. The APT approach would extend the tax base from income, consumption and wealth to all transactions. Such a uniform tax might not, on its face, look progressive, but would be since the volume of taxed transactions rise disproportionately with personal income.

Most importantly, the APTT takes away from our legislators the one thing that the legislators appreciate the most and the average American appreciates the least -- Governments ability to use the tax code to manipulate public policy. By instituting the APTT, our legislators will no longer be able to use the tax code as a weapon to punish segments of business and industry and direct investment from one type of business to another. Every area of the operation of the American economy will operate on an even playing field.

The APT tax is designed to avoid the contentious issue of how large the government should be by conceiving it as a revenue neutral tax that would replace other taxes. Simplicity is achieved by requiring that all final party transactions be taxed, and at the same rate. The APT tax .can be viewed as a public brokerage fee accessed by the government to pay for the provision of the monetary, legal and political institutions that protect private property rights and facilitate market trade and commerce.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

An Interesting Corollary

Recently videos have surfaced of a speech made this past June by White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. During her speech, Ms. Dunn made the point that "In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. They had the air force. They had everything on their side, and people said, ‘How can you win? How can you do this?’ …and Mao Tse Tung said, ‘You know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.’”

Here's an interesting corollary to ponder -- today the majority of the United States, by geographic area, is populated by conservative, God-Fearing, responsible Americans. The Democratic party controls the populations generally living in and controlling the cities and the Universities. The White House controls the Army and Air force. Hell, they even control the media. They have everything on their side. Note the similarity?

How will we, the responsible Americans win? We will get energized and fight our own war. I think America is about to witness the rise in the true majority of Americans who will fight our own war to ensure that an America “of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth“. We will work to ensure that our country can never be replaced by an America “of the government, by the government and for the government”.
I predict we will win.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Remember When

Remember when the government decided to help protect us from the huge incr4eases in price and the decreasing supply of oil availability back in the early 70’s? Remember what happened? We got higher prices, shortages so bad we had rationing and the creation of the DOE -- All because we were importing 20% of the oil we consumed.
How are things different today? The government has returned oil allocation to the open market, and we have regular supplies at higher, but manageable costs. The government continues to regulate the development of domestic oil production which results in more than 16 BILLION DOLLARS per year being spent to operate the DOE and we import more than 68% of the oil we consume, in spite of the fact that known domestic reserves have increased by a huge margin since the time the DOE was created.

Consider the Cable/Satellite Television companies, as soon as the government took action to make everyone conform to a digital system, the price and complexity of access became much more expensive.

Take a look at your cell phone or other communications bills and you will see more charges and taxes for governmental regulations than you will for the service you are buying.

Let’s move forward to early this year, admittedly due to communications and computer advancements, the result of government actions occur at much greater speed, but we can already see the effect of this administration’s policy actions. Take for instance the legislation which was passed to protect the American public from the "vulturistic" actions of the credit card issuers. Within 30 days of the regulation being implemented, credit rates began to climb, credit lines began to shrink and niggling charges began to increase.

Consider the residential property value implosion, the government has spent BILLIONS and wants to spend BILLIONS more to help modify mortgages for those who shouldn’t have received them in the first place. This at a time when executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have stated that not only do only between 30 and 40 percent of the applicants will ever qualify, but of those that do, 58% will fall back into default inside of 6 months. And of course the problem was caused by interfering government regulation to begin with.

Now, the government is going to help protect us from the rising cost of health care in America. In order to accomplish this and to make “affordable” health care available to the approximately 30 Million people who do not have health care, the CBO has estimated that the taxpayer cost over the next ten years will be somewhere north of 829 BILLION DOLLARS. Another report states that at the point the projected reforms are fully implemented there will still be between 30 and 53 million Americans without insurance. Also, as we enter the open enrollment period for health care plans, we are being told to expect “shockingly higher” costs for our health insurance plans -- in anticipation of the huge cost increases insurers are expected to incur as a result of this protective legislation.

Those who are proponents of the health care reform site the fact that they will be able to offset this cost by eliminating more than 500 BILLION DOLLARS of waste and fraud from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Do I need to remind anyone that Medicare and Medicaid are Government conceived and operated programs? Who is in charge of and polices the program which has “more than 500 BILLION DOLLARS of waste and fraud”?

I could go on and on. In my lifetime I cannot recall a program created and operated by the government which came in under budget and operated efficiently. Considering that the government has such a sterling history of being so successful protecting our interests, does anyone really want our legislators to pass and implement a health care reform bill? Do we really need the government to protect us from ourselves with such proven efficiency and at such a cost? REALLY?

Saturday, October 17, 2009

We’re broke, time for a new tax

In the past week we have heard that our government is broke, that the deficit is now projected to be 1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS this year alone and that we can expect increasing deficits over the next ten years.

Our legislators are preparing a “Health Care” reform bill generally known as “ObamaCare”, which according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will cost over 829 BILLION DOLLARS or according to Harry Reid, upwards of 2 TRILLION DOLLARS.

We, the community of American citizens, are suffering an unemployment rate hovering around 10%. Of course we were told, the application of more than 700 BILLION DOLLARS of our money would guarantee to keep it below 8%. Our legislators are discussing another round of stimulus appropriations as a remedy. Even at this early stage of the Obama administration, it is apparent that taxes must increase. Good money after bad it seems.

The President made and has repeated two promises -- First, not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K per year and Second -- not to sign a health care bill which “adds to the deficit by one dollar, now or in the future”.

In order to protect the Presidents pledge not to raise taxes, the house is proposing a Value Added Tax (VAT). Of course this is an additional tax and one which will absolutely affect those making less than $250K per year, but since it is not a direct income tax it is somehow considered to be acceptable, regardless of the effect on the middle class.

Don’t even consider promise number 2, this is such an absolute lie that only the most ardent and stupid supporters of Obama believe it.

Yet the class of professional politicians which has evolved over the past 50 years continues to run interference for Obama. They don’t pay attention to us because history has shown that we continue to vote for them regardless of their actions
 

We, the responsible citizens of the United States of America, must pay attention, become active and stay active or we will find ourselves devoting the majority of our working lives to support the government.
We can start by paying attention to what is happening in Washington. Let our representatives know that we are watching. Regularly tell them that your vote will reflect their actions. We the citizens of this country, the responsible majority, those of us who have been sitting on the sidelines, must get out and break down the wall.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

A comparison

I didn't like Bush's policies with regard to Iraq, I think that is fairly well known, but at least he didn't hide his agenda. Most of the following was sent to me unattributed, but the points in BOLD are mine. Many have made the statement that they appreciate Obama being elected because at least he is "smart" -- For those of you, consider the following. R----


If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is
really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? By the way, a Marine friend told me that the true cost for the trip with all the supporting personnel, aircraft, vehicles and lodging amounted to over $562K

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in less than one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George Bush would have excluded Democrats from debating the largest and most expansive legislative issues of his first year and then directed the Republican leadership to create the legislation behind closed doors without Democratic input, would you approve?

I may not agree with the "birthers" out there, but if there was a question about George Bush's or even John McCain's birthplace and either of them refused to produce sealed original documents, would you approve?
If instead, Bush or McCain dismissed the inquiries and spent enormous sums of money to keep their school and legislative records sealed from the public, would you approve?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer. I really hope you are happy with this decision.

Now we have Sonia Sotomayor as a newly installed SC Justist and a second Jurist sitting on the SCOTUS who is sick and aging rapidly. Looks like our President is going to get to seat at least one more SC Justice in his first year in office. Do you approve of his take over of the SCOTUS?

Now we get ObamaCare rapidly moving through the nSenate which will cost taxpayers a minimum of $829 BILLION DOLLARS. If I remember correctly, many of you claimed we didn't have to worry about ObamaCare because it probably wouldn't happen, that I was being irresonsible in my criticism. Really? Is it time to get off the bench yet? -- Just asking!

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer. I really hope you are happy with this decision.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Gun Control

My network was down all day yesterday and didn't come back up until this morning, so I am really backed up with work and the Blog. I will try to catch up over the next few days. Keep coming back. I promise to catch up.

Note today's (Saturday) thought. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Jefferson and will add that this has never been more pertinent in America than right now. Even though HR-45 is a dead issue, the Chicago handgun ban case before the SCOTUS could be the beginning of another slide down the slippery slope of enormous restriction against the legal ownership of firearms.

Referring to the Chicago case before him, Judge Frank Easterbrook said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule." "Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon."

I don’t agree with Judge Easterbrook. Our country is not governed by a Federalist Democracy, we are governed by a Constitutional Republic. Judge Easterbrook’s is the type of attitude which will strip our rights. Not only the right to carry a firearm, but many other rights delineated in the Constitution.

The further we allow progressives to move us away from the core values guaranteed under the constitution, the weaker we become as a nation. Gun control is only one of the headline issues.

Many have stated and the basis for the Chicago ban is an increasing incidence of murder with handguns in the inner city. This is true, but it is not indicative of improper control, there are more than enough laws and regulations on the use of firearms. I will opine that this is much more indicative of the criminality of the inner city residents, who have since the time President Johnson’s “Great Society” program was initiated, been living in single female head of households and have lost their moral center. Not having a strong father figure, or any father figure for that matter, is the real problem. If there is no one to teach that violence is not the answer, if there is no one to teach the work ethic, then violence becomes a more accepted action.

Let’s take a look at Americas large cities which have the most stringent gun control laws -- DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia are in the top ten in America.. Now consider the Cities which have the highest rates of single female head of households -- DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, again -- in the top ten.. Finally, consider the cities with the highest rates of firearm violence --DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia -- low and behold, top ten again.

Are you beginning to get the picture? Do you see the correlation? Guns aren’t the problem, moral upbringing and character is the problem. Our professional politicians shouldn't react to violence so much as the root cause of the violence. Our national policy should be to turn forty years of slipping down the moral slope around and begin the climb back to rebuilding two party households with a strong father figure in the inner cities.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

TARP Recipient Ownership Trust Act of 2009

I received the following announcement from Senator Mark Warner today. I may not agree that the economy is beginning to improve, but I do think this is very good policy and I applaud him for proposing it:
October 8, 2009
While there are recent promising signs that our country's economy is beginning to improve, I share the concerns of many Virginians about the federal government's role in assuming significant ownership stakes in several private companies -- namely General Motors, Chrysler, AIG and Citigroup.Taxpayers are understandably worried about how much of their initial investment they can expect to get back.

I believe more immediate action is necessary to enforce some "rules of the road" on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that would more fully protect the taxpayer -- removing any hint of politics from the federal government's temporary ownership stake in these companies -- and provide a clear strategy for selling taxpayer ownership of these companies.That's why I have introduced, along with Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican colleague from Tennessee, the TARP Recipient Ownership Trust Act of 2009. Here is what our bipartisan proposal will do:

If the government owns more than 10 percent of a private company, this ownership stake would be placed in an independent trust supervised by three trustees, appointed by the President, with a responsibility to maximize the return-on-investment for the taxpayers.
These three trustees should be neutral, respected business executives, with recognized records of accomplishment, and with the skills and knowledge to maximize taxpayer returns on our ownership stake.

The trust will have a responsibility to sell these assets by the end of 2011. That should give taxpayers confidence that they will not still own a significant share of stocks in these companies five, 10 or even 20 years from now. This week, I was pleased that the Washington Post editorial board endorsed our proposal, and the Wall Street Journal's Dow Jones Newswire wrote about our efforts to design a responsible strategy for ending our ownership in these companies.This is just one aspect of financial reform we must tackle – and sooner rather than later. Other critical issues include taking steps to prevent any institution from becoming “too big to fail,” putting our entire system at risk -- updating our disjointed system of bank regulation -- and consideration of improved consumer protection tools. I can assure you that we will continue to work in a responsible and bipartisan way to address these challenges.
Regards,
Mark Warner

Obama Case Update --

I recently received this "birther" commentary from a very smart and admired friend. This is about the 5th time I have received this since the beginning of the year. I would like to state for the record that this is, IMHO, another hysterial and reactionary piece which uses innuendo and half truth as though they are facts. There are too many holes in this document to seriously consider it, but I will say that the Occidental College transcripts were never released as claimed, and even if they were, the one thing they wouldn't have shown is that Barak Obama -received, under any name, a FullBright Scholarship to attend Occidental as an undergraduate. FullBright Scholarships are only granted to grad students.

There are many valid questions surrounding President Obama and the issue of his birth. They are currently being adjudicated in California and we should see a ruling inside a week. It won't resolve the issue and is sure to be appealed regardless of the ruling, but it is active.

I think the more pertinent issue is that both the President and the Speaker of the House have claimed they will operate the most transparent government in history, yet to date, the President has not only refused to allow transparency surrounding his personal records, but has spent a huge amount of money to keep them blocked. Where is the transparency he promised? Why is it OK to question McCain's citizenship credentials but not candidate/President Obama's? Why is it fine for Obama, a public figure by choice, to hide his personal records and writings from public scrutiny?

More important, what happens if and when the actual Hawaii birth certificate comes to light? Does the question of what he wrote in his Columbia thesis and the Harvard Law Review automatically become moot? Do the questions of why he sealed them go away? Do the sealed records of his actions as a legislator in the state of Illinois no longer matter? Do we no longer have a right to transparency in matters of Obama's public life?

I think these issues do matter and think they are the true smoking gun. This is my concern -- He uses the "birther" controversy to divert attention away from his true feelings and writings which may show that his beliefs are diametrically opposed to those of the majority of Americans. I think that if his University writings come to light, he will be bounced out of office in a heart beat. I think he is using this birth certificate issue to divert attention from the important inquiries into his past.

Meet the Soetoros


Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro,baby Maya Soetoro, and 9 year old Barry Soetoro

This registration document, made available on Jan.. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.

Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: ...... Islam
Nationality: ...... Indonesian How did little INDONESIAN, Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become president?
Someone who tells lies is a L __ __ r?

PART 2:
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group
"Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College .Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.

The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.
To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.

The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president.

When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned,"
leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.

Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualifications to serve as president.Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending.

This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Virginia Road Tax Increase

This morning, the Washington Post ran an editorial titled "Taxes or Traffic In Virginia, a plea for one to fix the other". The writer reported on the report issued by a coalition of 17 Northern Virginia businesses which proclaimed that it is necessary for the state to raise taxes to address the poor road infrastructure and resulting gridlock. See a link to the article in sidebar.

Virginia wouldn't need to increase road or any other taxes if the state didn't throw transportation funding to the embedded transportation industry. As an example, the budget for 22 miles of above ground public transportation from West F.C. to Dulles is projected to approach $2.7 Billion dollars before cost overruns. This amounts to more than $127 million dollars per mile!

There is an alternative which costs the state Zero dollars, can be built in a fraction of the time, will operate on demand, 24/7/365 and is expandable at will. This alternative is the Personal Rapid Transit System called SkyTran which has been developed by the Uni-Modal Corporation. Uni Modal (
www.unimodal.com) is a company founded and operated by a group of ex-NASA rocket scientists. They know what they are doing and are willing to put their money where their mouth is to build and operate 21st century mass transit systems. This is a perfect answer for the Dulles corridor and for the transportation issues affecting Northern Virginia, especially in light of the recessionary climate in the country.

Simply put, why wouldn’t the state of Virginia want a no-cost, on demand, modern transportation system as the centerpiece for it’s gateway into DC?

Why doesn't the state of Virginia consider this -- lobbying and enormous political contributions from the likes of Bechtel who have a vested financial interest in seeing the enormously expensive system installed. Get rid of the graft and the state won’t need a tax increase.

Decrease the size of the federal government and there won’t be so much pressure for people to move into the area and overburden the traffic infrastructure. But that will be the subject of a future posting.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

California Obama Eligibility Case

For those who haven't been updated, Judge Carter held his motion to dismiss hearing in the Santa Ana, California case of Obama's eligibility question. After more than 3 hours of argument, the good judge took the matter under advisement, said he will review them and make a decision at a later date.
From the blog sites tracking this case, the majority who observed the arguments believe that Judge Carter was intending to dismiss until the plaintiffs lawyers made "impassioned" pleas to allow the case to go forward. After the lawyers made their pleas, the judge chose to defer his decision until after he had the time to review the cited cases.
It again seems that the case is revolving around standing. The main argument from the justice department lawyers is that the court in California does not have standing for a "quo warrento" case which should more appropriately be heard in the District of Columbia which hears constitutional issues.
The judge will review the arguments and make his ruling at an unspecified time in the future. I find it interesting that he made the statement to the lawyers for both sides that he expected an appeal regardless of his decision and that they should begin preparing their arguments.
I will also note that the judge discussed scheduling for the case to proceed and in doing so, continued his stay on the motion for discovery until such time as he makes his final ruling.

98 Banks Fail

At the beginning of this year, after reviewing the number of banks which failed last year and the state of the economy, I predicted that we would suffer between 125 and 150 bank failures in 2009. So far, after 3/4's of the year have passed, we have reached 98 failures. I assume that we will see a few more fail before the end of the year. See the artilce I attached under the pertinent articles section for further detail.
I note this, not to pat myself on the back, but to point out that regardless of how the Federal government may spin it, our economy is not improving. We are still suffering through a serious recession which is expanding, not diminishing. The government response -- utilizing a 700+ Billion Dollar bailout plan followed by a 700+ Billion Dollar stimulus plan, is neither bailing out nor stimulating the economy into productivity.
The banks are not lending any more than they were before the bailout and the number of American citizens who are losing their jobs and careers is not decreasing. In addition, the FDIC is being pushed to the breaking point and is about to go the way of AIG and Fannie and Freddie without additional capitalization.
When will it end and the economy turn around? In my opinion, when the government stops artificially propping up selected segments of business. We must let those that are not efficient, fail and be replaced by those which operate profitably. This is common sense business 101.
Will this hurt in the short term? Quite likely, but we're already hurting. Better to have the pain be short term and lead to a stronger and more stable economy. At least I believe this to be preferrable to the long term pain of an ailing economy which is artificially propped up by the government use of our tax dollars in an inefficient manner.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Shariah Law is a danger to Democracy

Last weekend I read the article "Shariah Law is the enemy, not Afghanistan" by Diana West. I found it interesting enough to create a link to the article which you can find in the "pertinent articles"section of this blog.
Ms. West's premise, to which I agree, is that the mission in Afghanistan is pointless. We are not and should not be fighting a war to instill democracy in Afghanistan any more than we should have been fighting a war for democracy in Iraq. Afghanistan and Iraq are not "Wars against Terrorism". The "War against Terrorism" is a war, not against a specific country or a specific leader, but against a culture and the culture is one of Shariah Law.
We as a country must understand that we need to protect our shores from the creeping tenacles of a culture which is intent on destroying our way of life in favor of their regressive autocracy.
Until we stop allowing the infiltration of the Shariah advocates, our American form of government, a constitutional Republic, will continue to fade at an ever increasing rate.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Conservatives Betrayed

I recently read ‘Conservatives Betrayed’, a book written by Richard Vigeurie. In the book, Mr. Vigeurie states “When you look at third party efforts on the Right, whether of the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party variety, you can perhaps agree with their platforms and principles more than with those of the Republican Party – but as minority parties they have next to zero influence on national policy”. I agree with this statement and think we must correct this.
The majority of Americans are conservative in nature, and believe in the traditional values which make America great, whether they acknowledge it or not. The majority are patriotic, believe in God and country, are individualistic and prefer limited government. For most that embrace these values, the Republican Party has been their choice for representation. Unfortunately, the current Republican Party no longer represents these values and the minority parties truly have no influence.

Conservative Americans must understand that they are a block without a party. Since the administration of Richard Nixon, EVERY Republican president has expanded the federal government and increased the national debt, Reagan included. In fact every administration since Kennedy has expanded the Federal bureaucracy and every president has increased the Federal Debt. This is not the representation we seek, but is the representation we allow. We, the majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, must unite as one compelling force in order to stop this continuing slide into debt and see America regain the greatness it has lost in recent years.

We who believe in the American way of life have got to find amid our ranks, people capable of bringing all Americans of conservative nature together. We must appeal to the conservative minded majority, to join with us in ONE strong party, to not only regain America but to rid this country of big government, tax and spend professional politicians. The Tea Party movement is the beginning, but we must keep it going and make our voices heard starting with the election in November and all future elections until the entrenched representatives get the message -- You can’t continue to act with impunity and a sense of entitlement. You can’t continue to saddle the American citizen with debt and burdensome laws which do nothing but increase your shield of entitlement.

We must create new beginning to signal that we intend to make government smaller, leaner and stronger. We have to unite to end expanding taxes and outrageous irresponsible spending. We must return to limited government which provides for the necessary protection of all Americans with a strong military, but is limited to the protection of our shores and operates within the limits of our constitution. We must stop the heavy handed promotion of democracy throughout the world it is neither our right nor our responsibility.

We must send the message that we are a free society, and believe in free market capitalism. We must p[resent the case that we are able to succed through our efforts, but when we fail, it is our responsibility. We have to let businesses fail when they are not able to operate efficiently, but we must eliminate regulation which forces private companies to operate inefficiently. We must stop the government from taking control of and operating banks and businesses. We need a fair and flat tax to eliminate the legislators ability to use the tax code to manipulate the population. Most importantly, we must put an end to the entrenched professional politicians and return to the citizen legislator who comes, serves out of a sense of duty to country then returns to the private sector. We do not need or want our politicians to make a career of representation.

We must find and nominate candidates who can uphold these standards of governance and personal conduct. We must go out into our communities and locate these leaders. The leaders will stand out and make themselves known. They will most likely be reluctant to participate, but we have to push them out of a sense of duty.

When the majority realize the political leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties will not allow this, that this will threaten their power base, conservative Americans need to sit down with members of the Republican, Libertarian and Constitution parties and Blue Dog Democrats, and other serious Americans, determine that we are all in basic agreement, then unite as one strong party for the good of the country. The time is right and the groundswell is occurring. America must return to greatness and only by working together and promoting constitutional values can it be done. We need to get something going soon before the elite politicians in charge of the current parties drown us all in a sea of debt.

Conservatives from all parties, including Dem Blue Dogs will accept a new party with a new name and a new beginning easier than fighting to remove the traditional Republican power structure. The true American conservative -- the majority of Americans -- will embrace an inclusive party which consolidates the ideals and objectives of limited government that our founders imagined as they debated the Bill of rights and Constitution.

We the people, the truly patriotic American majority, need to reclaim our country from sure disaster at the hands of professional politicians who are more interested in securing their power base than promoting the American way of life. We must make known our desires for a new beginning.
A new party with all new leaders offers a chance to accomplish this. The staus quo does not. We need to get something going soon before the leadership in charge of the Republican and Democratic parties drown us all in a sea of indebtedness.

Michael Moore is a catastrophe

Everyone needs to get the word out -- This guy is a menace. He honestly doesn't understand that the "people" are us and "we the people" don't want government run health care. Accessibilty to market based, portable Health INSURANCE is what is needed. Do we want or need cradle to grave, universal single payer Health CARE, as envisioned and administered by the current administration, at a cost of hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars. Absolutely not!

He doesn't understand the individualistic nature of the American people any more than he understands capitalism. He is a mockery of the responsible citizen he claims to be. Though he has become notroious with his warped view of American values, he is just plain wrong. "We" the American majority don't agree with him and we need to counter his attempts at intimidation with similar action of our own. Find the smart and independent Americans who can lead the charge to a smaller government and support them loudly! Let Mr. Moore know that "we" are not going to put up with his foolish rabble rousing.

Below are his comments:

Controversial liberal filmmaker Michael Moore on Tuesday issued a warning to Democrats who have been cool to President Barack Obama’s call for meaningful health care reform: Get on board or prepare to lose your seat.

“To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want,” Moore told supporters of women’s groups and unions gathered at the headquarters of the government watchdog group Public Citizen. “That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election.”

“You think that we’re just going to go along with you because you’re Democrats? You should think again,” he told the Tuesday crowd in a speech that was carried to members of the media dialed into a conference call. “Because we’ll find Republicans who are smart enough to realize that the majority of Americans want universal healthcare. That’s right. That’s absolutely right. Don’t take this for granted.”


Federal Taxes

I was planning a post on another subject, but heard a report on Federal Taxes and got sidetracked.




In fact, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. This is because our progressive tax system levies higher taxes on higer earners and lower taxes on those who make less. Is this right? I don't agree with it, but the decision is not mine to make.

One obeservation I will make though, is that taxes are used by politicians to direct public policy and as a method to generate votes through class warfare. This is just plain wrong.

The simple answer in my mind -- Cut the cost of government, pass a balanced budget amendment and install a flat tax with the following conditions:

5% of all earned income above 35K per wage earner to the Federal Treasury. This will be used to operate the federal government and if government has to grow smaller and programs dissolved as a result, so much the better. I think we will more faithfully follow the constitution if we leave it up to the individual states to manage the day to day activities of government. The states will still have the ability to levy taxes in any amount and manner their citizens allow. Those who are not comfortable with the taxes levied in their state of residence will have the option of moving to a state with a tax they deem more acceptable. I ask, why should the Federal Government, operating under the limitations placed by the founding fathers, require more than 5% of the American peroples wages?

5% of all earned income per wage earner to be set aside for entitlement programs. This will cover Social Security, medicare, medicaid and any other entitlement programs agreeable to "We the people". This should have a 10 year grandfather clause requiring no reduction in current benefit levels. Thereafter, if this set aside requires a reduction in current benefits those affected will have time to make other arrangements. Why should the American people give more than 5% of their income for entitlement programs?

5% of all earned income used to pay off the Federal Debt. This is self explanatory. I beleive that those who are most responsible for the cost of government have to help repay the debt they help to create. In this way, all will be less willing to allow the government to grow. At the point in time that the debt is repaid, the tax should be extinguished. This will give the taxpayer incentive to make sure the debt is repaid.

This seems both fair and progressive to me. Progressive because the highest wage earners will still carry the greatest tax burden and fair because it takes away our politicians ability to use the tax code for social engineering.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The battle for the Republican Party

The battle for the Republican Party rages on. The battle is to get real conservatives doing the business of government along conservative lines, which means they support a peaceful disintegration of the global American military empire, and a government that is out of your pocketbook, out of your bedroom, out of your children’s lives, and out of your life. They must have respect for a budget and work to reduce taxes and government spending. Real conservatives appreciate government that provides only the basic services put forth by the founders, and one that is properly constrained by, and wholly respects, the Constitution. Real conservatives love the ideas put forth in the constitution, and they like the idea of a constitutional Republic. They really do.

The battle is raging within the party itself and is being waged between the embedded professional politicians and republican legislators who listen to the conservative American majority.
The battle is not being fought over religion and a bottomless pit of debt. It is over the ideology of smaller government and a return to the principals of the founding fathers. I hope real conservatives will rise up to save their party, but it is going to be an uphill battle against the republican leadership. Unfortunately, the leadership won the battle during the 2008 election. This resulted in the nomination of McCain/Palin and the reactionary election of Barak Obama.
Hopefully the conservatives can win the war. If they can, great. If they are not successful, I can only hope that the rise in an independent party comes quickly enough to stop the liberal tide of socialism from becoming a Tsunami.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Thoughts on Being an American, Post 9/11

In the days after 9/11 I sat down and wrote about my feelings. My feelings haven't changed and I decided that since I created this blog to discuss the ideals of America, it would be appropriate to post these thoughts. So allow me a moment go back and think about being an American just after 9/11.

Tell your friends everywhere that no matter what happens here in America every American should raise a flag, as I am, and remember, the Eagle is America's national bird because it's the one bird which is not afraid to fly during a storm. We're Americans and will fly through this storm. We will weather this storm and remain strong, no matter what some fanatic does to try to break our spirit, provided we maintain our ideals. The ideals which make America a beacon of light for the world.

I will be stronger because I will be vigilant. No longer will I be lazy and no longer will I believe I am invulnerable. Believe me when I say, that not only will America survive, but it will prosper. Why? Because of something terrorists will never understand. America isn't about a building or two, not about financial centers, not about military centers, America isn't about a place, America isn't even about a bunch of bodies. America is about an IDEAL and an idea. An idea, that you can go someplace where you can earn as much as you can figure out how to, live for the most part, like you envision living, and pursue Happiness. We offer no guarantees that you'll reach it, but we offer everyone the opportunity to try. This is what separates us from the rest of the world.

Let the terrorist whine, and chant his terrorist litany: "If you can not see my point, then feel my pain." This concept is asinine to Americans. We live in America, where we don't have to see your point, but believe you're free to have one. We don't have to listen to your speech, but we'll defend you're right to speak publicly. I don't understand where these people got the strange idea that everyone has to agree with their beliefs. Hell, we don't agree with each other in this country, almost as a matter of pride. We're a collection of different thinking people who don't agree and revel in it. We united around an idea, an idea we made up on the spot. You CAN make it up as you go, when it's your country and you not only have the right to express you ideas and opinions, but people will listen to it. We don't have to agree, and that is a right we are given, but as free citizens of this country, we will listen with respect.
Yeah, we're fat, sloppy, easy-going goofs most of the time. That's an unfortunate image to project to the world, but it comes of feeling free, secure and open in our world. It's unfortunate too, because outsiders forget that when you attack Americans, we tend to fight back like a big brown bear. Hard, Fast and ruthlessly!!

So Mr. terrorist, sorry, but you’re not the first bully on our shores, just the most recent. No Marquis of Queensbury rules for Americans, either. We were the FIRST and so far, only country in the world to use nuclear weapons in anger. Horrific idea nowadays? News for the terrorists, it was back then too, and we used it anyway. Only had two of them in the whole world and we used 'em both, because we had a War to win. Does that tell you something about American Resolve? Don't cross an American. We can fight tooth and nail amongst ourselves, but don't come from the outside and mess with us. We will put you down.

So who just declared War on us? It would be nice to point to some real estate, like the good old days. Unfortunately, we're probably at war with random camps, in far-flung places. Who think they're safe. Just like the Barberry Pirates did. They were wrong. So are the terrorists. They better start sleeping with one eye open.

There's a spirit on this country. I will take over people who come to this country, looking for opportunity, looking for liberty, looking for freedom. Even if they misuse it. As for the terrorists, they're only the newest problem, not the first.These Terrorists seem incapable of understanding that we don't live in America, America lives in US!

American Spirit is what it's called. And killing a few thousand of us, even a few million of us, won't change it. Most of the time, it's a pretty happy-go-lucky kind of Spirit. But when we're crossed in a cowardly manner, then it becomes an entirely different and vengeful Spirit. God help the Terrorists when they meet him, because they will soon.

I am an American, both in action and in spirit. It may be hard for most outside America to understand, but it is an ingrained part of my life, my psyche and my belief system. I mourn those who lost their lives to the insanity of September 11th, but as an American, I have the responsibility to live free and continue to celebrate the fact that we as Americans cannot be beaten on our shores. Justice may not be as swift as in past history, but it will be just as lethal.

FLY THE FLAG OF YOUR COUNTRY IN SUPPORT OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!

MEMORIES OF 9/11 AND THE PENTAGON

As a young child, during the early years of my father’s career in the US Army, We lived South Post, Fort Myer. I used the Pentagon as a playground, the Army Chief of Staffs office as a place to have lunch with Dad.

I would run from our billet past the post swimming pool, through the tunnel under the highway, up to the west lawn of the building. I would always stop and gaze at the helicopters on the recently constructed heliport. Then I’d hurry so my Dad wouldn’t have to wait for the lunch I carried.

I remember running the halls to his office beside the chiefs. I don’t recall which level or ring, but I always knew when I was in the right area because of the portraits on the walls. These were a history of the men who commanded the US Army. Some stood with sabers at their sides. General MacArthur is a particular recollection, staring off into the distance. Each one a man of bearing, proud and strong: stars and ribbons on their chests, gold braids on their caps. Each has a stern look and serious gaze, none smile. As a child, I was always proud of those men and of my Dad’s work.

Seven years ago this morning, I lived in Rosslyn Virginia. I began my day by trying to make my morning calls but the network was overloaded. A short time later my close friend and Attorney got a call through and told me to turn on the TV, that a plane had hit the WTC. Just after I turned on the set they flashed a report that another plane had hit the Pentagon. When I heard the report about the plane crashing into the Pentagon I knew I had to do something. I didn’t know what I could do, but I had to help. I ended the call and hopped on my bicycle for the 2 mile ride to the Pentagon. I rode past the Iwo Jima monument and Netherlands Carillon, alongside the tombs of the navy and marine vets, past the tombs of the Vietnam casualties, interred in ground where I used to live and play those many years ago.

I rode over the tunnel I used to run through and reached a scene of mass devastation. I knew a plane had crashed there, but I didn’t notice it. All I saw was smoke and fire. I immediately began to help in any way I could. I didn’t try to enter the building, it just never occurred to me to do so. I consoled and offered aid to fellow citizens as they fled the burning building. I watched and helped as the injured and burned were laid out for triage in the south parking lot. The memory of those faces and burned bodies are etched in my heart and mind forever. Hours later, I returned to my bike and sat on the ground with my head in my hands, too weary and heartsick to face the trip home.

Two days later, I rode the same path with my nephew, again on bicycles and watched side by side with many other shocked and numb people as a huge flag was flown over the side of pentagon building.

This morning, seven years later, I returned to the west side of the Pentagon. As I watched the same huge flag fly over the side of the building I cried openly and without shame. I cried for the loss of life, not only here in the US, but also in Afghanistan and Iraq. A number much greater than those lost on that September morning.

I listened to President Bush’s the words of dedication and watched as our honor guard uncovered the individual memorial benches. Tears continued to run down my cheeks. I cried because the memories of some of these people, whose names I didn’t know and whose faces I could never place with a name on a bench, overwhelmed me.

I also cried because I realized that the Pentagon, once the largest building in the world, my childhood playground and a major thread throughout my life, was a symbol of war and human destruction. Yet, one of the strongest emotions I felt this morning was a sense of pride at the appropriateness of our American flag flying across the face of the Pentagon.

I am mortified by these revelations and am having a hard time coming to terms with the dichotomy of thoughts and feelings. I am suffering a loss of innocence I didn't realize I retained.I don't know where these feelings and emotions will take me. It will take quite a while to sort through them. They are as profound as the feelings I felt on the morning of 9/11/2001.

I celebrated our entry into Afghanistan, but I did not support the invasion of Iraq. I believe deeply in the ideals of the United States and will continue to do so throughout my life. I will proudly continue do what little is in my power to help preserve and protect her ideals. Some call me naïve. Some sarcastically call me an idealist.

I still do believe in the American dream. So yes, I guess I am an idealist, an American idealist. I carry a little card, offered as a gift many years ago, which states "Believe in the magic of your dreams". The dream of America lives on in my heart. I consider it a badge of honor. I just hope I am able to maintain this sense of idealism throughout the balance of my life.

Today, as I write these words, after a lifetime in which I’ve experienced Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and the 2 Iraq incursions, as well as the Iranian hostage crisis, the bombing of our African embassies, The Palestinian military building and the USS Cole: I think back to those portraits on the walls of the Pentagon and I wonder. I wonder if those men and their bosses, our Presidents, current and past, led our nation on the right path. I wonder if Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have rippled through time in a way that these many years later will achieve their ultimate destruction. Not through an actual explosion, but through the fear of one and the perception that we must protect ourselves from it. I wonder if the idea of a military safety net has overflowed it banks to become the societal safety net of bloated government. I sit here and wonder about a building of immense proportion, my childhood playground, which is dedicated to war. I wonder.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Obama's Health Care speech, Part 1

For the past few months, I have been following the debate on Health Care reform. I am an average citizen who happens to be one of the people most affected by the current state of health Insurance. I am now and always have been an independent businessman. I have never been employed by a large corporation, nor have I ever been a member of any trade union. As a result, I have effectively been shut out of the normal employer or union purchased, third party payer, health insurance industry.

Purchasing insurance as an individual or for the small number of people I have employed over the years is impossible at competitive rates. I have been declined coverage and paid a huge premium for my independence because I didn’t have the power of a large economically desirable group behind me. I have even been told point blank by a hospital that as a self payer I would be charged 3 times more than insurance companies to offset the cost of indigent care. I look forward to a reform in the health insurance industry, but am not in favor of the proposal being offered by the house and promoted by the President.

President Obama went before a joint session of congress last week to promote his plan for his idea of reform and I listened intently to what he is promoting. I would like to offer my reaction below.

I have some friends who claim that 85% of the population "doesn't have a clue" and that this is the constituency President Obama appeals to. I disagree. I may be an idealist, as some have claimed, but I think the citizens of America are smart enough to see this "plan" for what it is -- BAD POLICY and overreaching on the part of our president.

Thomas Sowell states of President Obama's speech, "To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpah and an insult to anyone's intelligence." I fully agree and am even more perplexed, when you add his statement that he will do so with additional “wellness benefits”.

To make this claim after an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has already shown this to be impossible is not only disingenuous, but extremely foolish. The Congressional Budget Office, considered to be bi-partisan, says Obama’s reform plan will add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years, but will not succeed at shrinking the overall costs of our nation's health care. To state that he "will not sign a health care bill which adds one dollar to the deficit, now or in the future" is at best arrogant and at worst an attempt to deceive. Either that or he has to fold his cards and go home without a bill.

He didn't explain how he was going to stop the "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" in the current health care system across America. If the government knows this fraud and waste exists, what are they doing about it? Why haven't they stopped it already? And since they haven't, what makes the President think he can? He may think he very highly of himself and his Czars, but he hasn't shown up anywhere with a magic wand that I have seen. And magic is going to be necessary to pull off this feat.

“There remain some significant details to iron out.” Are the words of the President, again with a straight face, as he told legislators that he was finally delivering not lofty rhetoric, but his plan for health care reform. Of course he doesn't explain how exactly all the savings will materialize. One only needs to look at the TennCare program in Tennessee to see that this doesn’t work. Want another example, how about the state program in Massachusetts which provides for universal care? It is well on its way to bankrupting the state. So I ask, when has a Federal plan ever cut costs effectively? I would welcome anyone in the US to show me an example.

In fact, while he kept referring to "my plan" or “our plan” he never explained which plan he meant. A plan he devised in the Whitehouse no one has ever seen? One of the two House plans? HB-3200 is over 1000 pages of theory, but don’t offer and substantive detail on how the plan will be incorporated. The “plan” whichever one to which President Obama is claiming authorship is not actually a plan, but a broad brush theoretical goal, promoted with rhetoric and absent any detail on how it can be realistically implemented and achieved. If history is an indicator, this is a recipe for an incredible increase in costs, not a reduction.

More to come in a few days. Come back for the next installment.

Obama's Health Care speech, Part 2

The president claims that the ”other side” hasn’t offered any plans, but this too is an untruth. There are a number of plans which have been submitted by Republican senators and at least two I am aware of from outside the government. They may not be any better than the Presidents goals, but at least they offer more detail. These plans which offer more choice and portability to the American citizens are not acceptable in the Presidents view, so I assume he does not consider them plans, even though they offer much more detail than the Presidents unpublished theoretical framework.

The President evoked America’s “self-reliance, our rugged individualism and our fierce defense of freedom”. Does he really believe this? If so, why is he trying so hard to eliminate our ability to rely on our selves and individually buy insurance? He has made the claim that we need to fix the system because “more than 50% of the population, under the age of 65 will lose their insurance at some point during the next ten years”. This is absolutely true, because more than 50% of the population of working Americans will change jobs over the next ten years and will not be able to take their insurance with them. This is because Health Insurance, unlike life and auto insurance are not portable. In fact, in more than 36 states, employers are not legally allowed to pay for employees individually owned health insurance. There is no regulation which disallows employers from paying for employee auto insurance. In fact, many employers pay the auto insurance premiums for their employees who have to drive regularly at work. Why isn’t this allowed for health insurance? One reason is that it removes a major bargaining chip from the Union’s quiver of negotiating points. Is this president going to put anything, regardless of how much common sense it makes, in a bill if it hurts unions? Not very likely, in my estimation.

The President made the claim, loudly refuted, that illegal immigrants will not be covered under his plan. This is wrong, at least from the following perspective -- if someone shows up at a hospital emergency room with a medical issue, they are treated, whether they have insurance or not. They are not asked for proof of citizenship and turned away if they can't produce it. They are admitted and treated. Once they are released, they are able to go back to their anonymous existence, no further payment collected. Think this will change under the Presidents theoretical framework? If so, can I offer you a really good deal on a bridge to Brooklyn?President Obama said that the government option, which he continues to support, “would only be available to those who don’t have insurance, which shouldn't be more than about 5%” and "will be funded 100% from the premiums of those who enroll". This statement goes beyond the bounds of credulity. In the first place, what is the group of 5% that he is speaking of? Is he referring to 5% of the population of the country? There won't be that many people to enroll if the other programs proposed are enacted. If he is speaking of 5% of the people not now covered, the number of enrollees will amount to approximately 1.5 million nationwide. There is no way that this small number of people can be covered 100% with premiums paid.