Category Archives: Laws the GOP should pass

Limit the Power of Bureaucracy

shackles

Shakespeare was wrong. It’s not lawyers, but bureaucrats that need to go first.

Often I hear the call from conservatives that we should impose term limits on Congress. This sounds nice but when you think about it, such actions have never been shown to lead to better legislation and only have resulted in having a higher percentage of idiots in bodies of parliament. I know it sounds nice but it just doesn’t want to work…now if you want to go back to having the Senate elected by state legislatures we might get better laws, but I don’t think most people are willing to admit that basic truth…so let’s get back to term limits. Term limits on elected officials will do nothing to actually improve anything…but what about term limits on federal and state employees.

Think about it.

Who is more dangerous? The idiot legislator who poorly words a bill about needing a business license? Or the worthless little fascist who thinks it is anywhere in the realm of civilized behavior to cite a child for having a lemonade stand on their lawn? (Hint one might need to be voted out of office, and one needs to be beat to death with a crowbar. Take a guess which is which.)

Who is more to blame? The Congressman who votes for a terrible addition to the tax code because it was tied to a bill that would ensure the military in a combat will get live bullets…or the IRS agent who takes a malicious glee in fining you because you could not deduce what the regulations they wrote above and beyond the law in Navajo code actually meant? (Hint: one can be forgiven for being in an impossible position, the other would be joining the S.S. if they were still hiring.)

Who should you worry about more? The politician who breaks their promise? Or the VA official who lets veterans die so they can get a bonus. (Dante would have to create a new level of hell just to deal with some of the shit we have seen go on the last few years from bureaucrats.)

Who ruins your life? The arrogant Senator who just is so vain he will do anything to get on TV, even going as far as arguing that we should arm ISIS? Or jackbooted thug who thinks it’s okay to call out a SWAT team on people who are selling raw milk? (Tough call, but John McCain is a particularly vile politician, far worse than most politicians ranking below most rodents, whereas I would go as far as to that 99% of all state and federal employees are scum.)

My point is that bureaucrats are far more dangerous than the people who write the laws. Because bureaucrats are the ones who write the regulations that determine how those laws will be enforced (that’s also something that needs to change, but we’ll get to that some other time) and the ones who enforce those laws and those regulations. No system in history has ever been constructed without the assumption that some competence and common sense will go into the enforcement…the problem is there is no way to encourage any of that in the system we currently have. You hire people for passing a basic civil servants entrance exam and they basically have a job for life. They can kill people intentionally or through incompetence (as the VA, ATF, and CDC have shown) and nobody loses a job. They can break law after law, violate basic Constitutional principles, and blackmail and intimidate citizens like this were a cheap Banana Republic and while in a just society there would be scores of bureaucrats swinging form gallows they know they’re all protected because their criminal boss plead the Fifth in front of Congress (oh and let’s not forget the destruction of evidence…)

These are people who have no incentive to justly enforce laws, to use common sense, or to even show the slightest bit of human decency. They have a job for life and pension after that. This has to stop. And the simplest way to do that is put term limits for all state and federal employees*. For all non-management staff the most you can serve in government is 15 years or two nonconsecutive terms of 10 years.   For management you need to receive a promotion at least once every 4 years or clearly you’re not good enough to keep.

big governmentFor the non-management staff this has several benefits. First every bureaucrat knows that there is no such job security…and they will be more concerned with making connections in the private sector than making the private sector’s existence a living nightmare. Second they will not act with impunity…the person you write up today could be conducting your interview tomorrow.   Third, you actually have to do your job well and in a way that will get compliments given to your boss about you that they can put on the letter of recommendation that you’ll need when you’re booted out of government service. Trust me, no little girls are going to be written up for a lemonade stand under this system…because no one would ever hire that sociopathic son of a bitch if they had that albatross hanging around their neck. You’d have just about the same job prospects as a child molester…and I don’t really see anything wrong with that (seriously, how mentally disturbed do you have to be to do that?)

As for management positions in government…the system I have set up that requires constant advancement…well there is no way faster to make sure there is a position open to get promoted into than being the whistle blower to point out that Ms. Lerner is breaking more laws than you thought a human being possibly could and oh, that’s right, I made sure to bring copies of all the email she sent me where she admits to breaking the law. The upper echelons of government will self-police with a ruthless efficiency that Congressional Oversight could never hope to match.

Now I’m sure someone will argue that the high turnover will result in far more open positions and low skill employees…this is true. This will result in Congress shrinking the responsibilities of these offices or just outsourcing their functions to the private sector just to make the pissed off voters go away. Win-win.

Now I will admit that this may cause the welfare rolls to swell slightly (as many government employees aren’t exactly qualified for private sector work) but I think the cost saving of them not getting in the way of my life may justify this.

Stop lifetime employment in government and actually get much better government.

*I am willing to exclude county and local government as these will be harder to fill, and jobs like police, district attorney’s office, and teacher you may not want to have high turnover as these are just functions of local government. Similarly I am willing to concede similar exemptions for the federal government for the Defense, State, and parts of the Justice Department (attorney’s and FBI), and anything in the Intelligence branch—these again are

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass

A Compromise We Should Offer Liberals If We Want To Win

Did we forget we're conservatives and we want to limit the power of the federal government?

A couple of years ago I did a series on laws the GOP should pass and in that I did a series of compromises I suggested we conservatives should suggest some laws that give liberals what they say they want but in such a way that we also get something in return and even though we’re giving them what they want we’re doing it in a way that does not violate our values (for instance make marriage a religious issue that government has nothing to do with, government only offers civil unions—they get the equality under law they want, we get the religious nature of marriage untouched by government).

 

And in this vein I have come up with the ultimate compromise, one that will in the end mean the decimation of Democratic and progressive power, but one that will be just too good an offer for the stupid liberals to turn down.

 

Lately there has been a call among the libs, idiots that they are, to overturn the 22nd Amendment…now to save you the time (because I’ll be honest after 19 they all get a little mixed up for me too) the 22nd is the one that limits any person from serving more than 2 terms (technically 10 years total) in the office of the president.  Why?  Because the liberals are so enamored of their divine savior that they think that His Holiness the transcendent Obama should just be allowed to serve 3 or 4 or 10 terms.  He is just that good.  (Yeah because that doesn’t sound like a dictator at all.)

 

And I say we give it to them.  Pass an amendment that overturns the 22nd Amendment.

 

What!  Do I want this nation to be destroyed?  Do I want us to have a GDP lower than a hunter-gatherer tribe lost in the Gobi?  Am I looking to spark a 2nd Dark Ages?

 

No. Hear me out.

 

For this, in the same Amendment (because this has to be an all or nothing thing) we overturn the 26th (the idiotic one that says unspeakably stupid and immature 18 year olds can vote).   And not only do we overturn it we replace it with the new bar that no one younger than 30 can vote* for a federal office (House, Senate, Electoral College)** AND that all states must verify their electoral votes by making voters show valid ID.

 

Okay so?  Why would that make allowing Obama have a chance at a third term acceptable?

 

Gosh...how can I best kill my base and help Romney's?

Because it will mean the end of the liberal movement.  It should come as no shock that the young, the immature, and the stupid from lack of experience tend to be liberal.  Also people who have not built up any property (again mostly the young) tend to liberal—yes I know it’s a shocker that the correct (read, conservative) governments, for whom one of the central functions is protection of property rights, isn’t popular with the people who haven’t been alive long enough to earn much. Also strangely the age group that finds the Daily Show to be their primary source of information tends to be the most liberal.

 

Okay, so we know that young people are dumb, big deal.  So what?

 

Well the benefits of Voter ID alone are almost too good to pass up. We all know that liberals have stolen an obscene number of elections through illegal voting.

 

I’ll tell you so what.  If voters under 30 had been barred from voting Romney would have won by nearly 70 Electoral College votes. Obama would have only won California by about 9 points (I could pull up the charts with all the math, but I don’t want to make your eyes bleed)…that’s right California would be at just the edge of swing state territory.  Swing states would become solid red and states that haven’t seen a Republican in ages would suddenly be battleground territory.  (And that’s before you take out all the illegals voting through Voter ID…if you had those 2 things it’s conceivable that California could once again be the state that gave us Reagan).

 

Almost every single thing that makes a person more inclined to be fiscally conservative (experience, marriage, children, income, wealth, employment, spirituality) is tied to age.  And think about it when the voting age was 21 in the colonial era, it wasn’t because people were so much more mature than by nature it was because the life expectancy was around 45.  You were already living on your own by the age of 19, still two years before you could vote.

 

By doing this conservatives gain an easy majority in the Senate and likely a consistent veto-proof majority in the House.

 

Now social issues will probably continue to lean a little left, but that’s just the evolution of society.

 

Now you may say, okay that will work for now, but once those 20 somethings get older they’ll be liberal with a vengeance in their 30’s.  Not so, because after a conservative Congress and conservative president institute real pro-growth policies, these otherwise idiotic young people will actually have something to work for and earn in their 20’s, will have families to care for, will have experience to guide them, and statistically they will vote for conservative economic policy.

 

Or you may say, the Democrats will never fall for it.

 

To which I have to say, you’re forgetting these are the idiots who fell for Obama’s shtick, deep thinkers they are not. If you offer them the chance to re-elect their God-king one more time they’d do things far worse than destroy their own party.  They’re deluded to think that he’ll get re-elected every time no matter what.  Yet the numbers show that’s not the case, but these idiots don’t understand numbers very much (as shown by their economic policies).

 

Now some of you still probably believe they’re not dumb enough to fall for this.  That they’ll see through the ruse and just vote for Obama-lite in 2016 and 2020.  Let me just point out that some of his idiot followers are attributing a cure for AIDS to the man, trust me they’re well beyond the point of being dumb enough. They really think this man is their lord and savior.  They’re well beyond dumb enough.  Well, well beyond.

 

They’ll fall for it.  And they’ll destroy their party in doing so.  So who’s with me on this?

 

 

*I’m more than willing to include an exception for active duty members of the military and veterans under 30.

**If states want to let the immature vote in state and local elections that’s their stupid choice.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, character, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid

Eric Cantor on Conservatism and the Future of America

Eric Cantor“We will go forward with this agenda with the conservative emphasis on individual effort, opportunity, on self reliance and on opportunity for more people.”

Majority Leader Eric Cantor will probably never be label with the moniker of “The Great Communicator”…which is unfortunate because his ideas are great ones that need to be heard.

Today he gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on the goals of the GOP in this Congress covering the free market solutions to innovation, education, immigration, workforce laws, taxes, and healthcare.

What makes this speech interesting is that not only does encompass sound policy but it starts using the more emotional based arguments in defense of capitalism suggested by Arthur Brooks (who happens to introduce Cantor).  The thought being that we all know the numbers and the logic of the free market work…but we’re trying to sell it people who primarily think in terms of emotions not logic, thus we must make the argument that Capitalism, Liberty, and the free market are not only Just and Pragmatic, but fair as well.

“It’s about making life work again for people for more people.”

(I personally love his response to the 2nd to the last question.)

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Budget, Capitalism, character, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Marianne Williamson, Patriotism, politics, Welfare

The Outlook on Control of the Senate

The time has come the Walrus said

To speak of many things

Of Senates—Of races—and filibusters—

Of polls—and vicious slings

And why Harry Reid still reigns–

And whether liberty rings…

Now as I’ve said before the Electoral College seems to be leaning to a Romney win, but that win will mean nothing if the Democrats remain in control of even a house of Congress.  Keep in mind Obama is already blaming Republicans for doing nothing in Congress when it is the Senate under Harry Reid that is not bringing  any bills up for vote even though House has passed bills that the Senate needs to vote on (but remember, in defiance of all facts, the Republicans are obstructionists). 

So, while the presidency isn’t a sure thing (although the odds are in our favor) it might be best to look at the Senate races before we start ushering in a new era of conservatism with Romney.  (I’d look at the House but with the economy, the lack luster coattails of Obama and the threat of putting Nancy Pelosi back in charge, I don’t think we’re likely to lose the House).  Granted what we would really like is 60 votes to ensure we always have cloture on votes (we can get them voted on).  But I always figure there are seven or eight blue dogs (or at least a few Dems who have to run in 2014) hanging around so we’ll probably be in decent shape if we can get to 53 votes in the Senate. 

So where do we stand right now?

Well According to RealClearPolitics, based on current polls we are at 47 safe or leaning  Democrat seats and 45 safe or leaning Republican states (when you count the seats not up for a vote) and 8 tossups.

 

But as with all things there is always a deeper level. RealClearPolitics, like any news agency survives on advertising, and as such makes money the more it brings you back to their site. If they declared that the Senate was going to swing Republican and there is nothing you can do about, no one would bother to keep checking the Race for the Senate seats more than once a month.  Non-battles don’t get press….so it is in their best interest to have a wide definition of toss up so as to get more people looking for information.  It’s not lying but, it’s also not a straight reporting of the facts.

So let’s look at some of these Toss-Up States.  (Keep in mind I’m working off limited data here).

First a word.  Now with the Electoral College I’ve been using the assumptions that in the end undecided voters tend to break 2 to 1 against the incumbent.  This logic doesn’t always apply here.  There are several seats that are open. Further, will people be voting against the incumbent Senator or the incumbent party (i.e., Democrats)?  Now if the incumbent is a Democrat it might be easier to assume that the undecided vote will break for the challenger, but I can’t be sure of the 2 to 1 ratio.  Whereas as of right now, with the limited data I have, it might be safe to assume that if the incumbent is a Republican the undecided vote is probably going to split pretty evenly. 

You have Wisconsin.  Now the Wisconsin Republican Primary hasn’t been held for the Senate Race but currently it looks like Thompson is ahead by double digits and will likely face off against Baldwin…at which point Wisconsin continues to favor Republicans like Scott Walker and Thompson will win, possibly by double digits, in “toss-up” Wisconsin.  Dems 47-GOP 46.

 

Next we have Nevada, where Heller is consistently up even in heavily biased PPP polls. Granted, there’s nothing terribly recent in terms of likely voter polls…but I get the feeling that so long as we aren’t running a Palin picked candidate (liberal at heart Palin can sure pick losers) Nevada is probably tired of Democrats constantly insulting their state and hurting business.  Dems 47-GOP 47.

 

North Dakota comes next.

Yes in a more recent Mason-Dixon Poll the Democrats are up, but given that it’s within margin of error and given that it is currently controlled by a Democrat (hence the undecided vote will go against the Democrats), the anti-Obama feelings will likely push N. Dakota into the red column.  I’ll admit this is a weak prediction, but I don’t have a lot of data to work with here.  Dems 47-GOP 48.

 

We follow this with Missouri.

Now Missouri is a tad trickier…the GOP primary hasn’t taken place yet and there is no clear winner yet.  However, given that all three candidates outdo the sitting Democrat, it’s probably a safe call to say that Missouri is going to switch to the GOP.  Dems 47-GOP 49.

 

And to round off 50 votes we have Montana where Republicans lead in legitimate polls and hold their own in BS PPP polls.  Dems 47-GOP 50.

At this point with 50 votes the GOP would control the Senate as Romney’s VP (oh please let it be Ryan) would be the tie breaking vote.  But let’s look at the other races.

In Massachusetts we have Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth “Dances with Bullshit” Warren.  As Warren continues to dig herself a deeper and deeper grave with the Pow-Wow Chow, while still up in the air, I think Brown, with the help of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, should be able to pull out a win.  47-51.

 

Turning down South we hit Florida, the source of so many election headaches.

Now technically the polls show the Democrats up in all of the polls, but notice that one is PPP, which can just be thrown out, and the others are registered voter polls, which means move the final number two or three points to the right.  Another close Republican victory…assuming we don’t have a rigged recount Dade county again.

 

And of the toss up states all we have left is Virginia…which I have no idea. The most recent polls has the GOP up…but it’s one poll in a sea of polls having the Democrat up (much older polls) but I have no reason to not believe this most recent one is an outlier…time will tell.  So with Florida and Virginia we could be as high as 47-53 (but that is could, not will unless we dedicate time, energy and money to all of these).

 

Now let’s talk about some long shots.  Now Connecticut and New Mexico are close, not spectacularly close, but not out of the realm of possibility to see a shift. Depending on how much the GOP wants to spend and how much time Romney spends in these states (New Mexico especially, it’s a weaker state for Obama) I would not be surprised to see one of them turn (keep in mind the Connecticut seat is the one being vacated by conservative-Democrat Joe Lieberman…a liberal Republican could stand a chance).

 

 

And last but not least I want to talk about three really long shots. Ohio, Washington and California.  Ohio has Democratic Sherrod Brown defending his seat.  This is a man who has railed against the correct Supreme Court Citizens United decision since the day it was passed because it doesn’t allow him to have the advantage union money used to give him.  This corrupt piece of shit deserves to go down in whatever the political equivalent of the phrase “to the pain” is.  It is unlikely that he will lose his seat, but I would be very happy to this man go.  As for the two west coast states with a Senator up…they’re pretty safe…except that even liberals are getting tired of their rhetoric…and we could manage to pull off a Romney landslide (not impossible) that is if it is clear Romney will win hours before the California and Washington polls close that might be just enough to discourage liberals from coming out to vote and swinging those seats in our favor…long shots, but stranger things have happened.  My point with these last three are if you have some spare cash and want to make a long shot investment…look to the GOP senators in the West.

Overall we are looking at a safe bet of taking back the Senate…not have the 60 votes necessary to push everything through without making deals, but back in control to where we let things come up to vote.  But we are close enough that this is not a hopeless fight…we are close enough that giving all we have for every last vote will actually lead to results.  Now again this should not be taken as a call to relax…no, with every vote closer to 60 we get in the Senate, more and more conservative proposals can get through without Democratic compromises.  We need to get as close as possible, and time, energy and money will get us there.

1 Comment

Filed under Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Mitt Romney, politics

RAMBLINGS from ConservativeCathy: Real Conservative Values

I was compiling a list of numerous topics (SOPA, Economy, Defense, etc.) and listing what I could find as the most representative statements from both Romney and Santorum.  I was doing this as my research indicates that Romney is more conservative (fiscally, constitutionally) than Santorum.  But as I became more aware that it would be impossible for anyone to logically/rationally say that Santorum (or Gingrich for that matter) was more conservative than Romney (or conservative at all) a light bulb went off in my head.  This is not an issue of just putting facts in front of people it is a problem with word definition.  My son and I often have long debates over what is meant or interpreted by a phrase or word.

The actual definition will not help explain my beliefs so I am presenting my political party platform (would prefer if the Republicans adopted something like this) so when I say conservative you know exactly where I stand.

Below is what I would like to see as a conservative platform that I believe that most groups can get behind.  I would encourage an open rational discussion from others.

This country has direction and a guide in our country that must be followed – The Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  This should be taught in detail in public schools so that all grow up with an understanding of the original intent.  For me the ideal party platform is based on the belief that the Founders meant what they said and it was to be interpreted for areas that they had no knowledge of at the time but not that it is to be interpreted for all new laws people want to see.  That is what amendments are for.

That my party stops using the term “democratic” improperly as we are a democratically elected representative Republic and all should actually understand that concept and why that was chosen.

Once we accept the above premise then we go back to the 1st amendment and follow it where religion is concerned.  All religions are allowed and proper as long as they do no harm to others.  You cannot preach hate inciting violence just like you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater.  You can preach any other belief you want.  Let’s deal with the 2 particular issues the Republican Party has taken to heart (unfortunately).

ABORTION.  I do not want to discuss whether or why you support or do not support this.  I again refer you to the Constitution – The government has no right to be involved in this type of decision.  Row v. Wade and how it is being interpreted is not going to be overturned (even by the right wing appointed justices).  The federal government should not and has no authority to fund this type of service – period.  Regardless how I feel about 3rd trimester abortions the federal government does not have the authority to make laws regarding this.  Now I could make a suggestion that an amendment to the Constitution be made regarding how life is determined by scientifically stating when a fetus becomes viable – but I am sure that would cause others to start the debate again.  Back to the Constitution this is your only option as the federal government does not have the right to interfere in the doctor patient relationship and what occurs within that relationship – that would be a state issue.  Socially speaking if parents were actually doing their jobs this might actually affect this discussion.

Now the other big issue GAY PEOPLE.  This is a religious issue and can be discussed within the religion.   I do not consider believing that God is against gays as hate (stupid but not hate – I think Jesus promoted love and I think judgment is God’s purview) as long as your beliefs do not cause action against someone else.  Again this comes back to what I said previously you could believe anything you want as long as you do not harm to anyone else.  Now you can hold things like “Gay Parades” to the same decency standards that exist for other parades.  I think that sex should not be discussed in public schools until (I was going to say High School – my age showing here) Middle School.  This discussion should be biologically based only.  School is not the place to be making judgments one way or the other – except I think that scientifically and biologically schools can state that abstinence is the only 100% workable format.  Again I ask why are parents not doing their job?  I rather like Cris’ format for government only being involved in civil unions and marriage being a religious ceremony. But again this is a states right’s issue unless you all agree on an amendment to the Constitution.  Which I think needs to be done as it is becoming federal when crossing state lines which of course it will.  Maybe we can all agree on the civil union and work from there.

This is a rather long discussion but I also want reiterated here that all government buildings belong to the people so all religious displays should be legal as long as government is not paying for them.  This country is a majority of Christians and so we celebrate Christmas (it is a Federal Holiday), we do celebrate Easter, we also celebrate Halloween, Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day.  So it is what it is.  These celebrations do not hurt someone who does not believe in them so get over it as long as your tax dollars are not being used to support any celebration (Chicago is exempt for St. Patrick’s day – such a long tradition).

We really need an amendment for a balanced budget along with an amendment for the budget to be capped.  I think that you can debate how to cap it but once we start following the Constitution the budget will not be as high except that we also need an amendment ensuring that federal deficit takes priority in budgeting plans (meaning it needs to be paid off ).  The only reason that we should ever allow debt again would be for war or maybe you can suggest something I can not think of but it should be pretty great.

We will not be in the business of assisting people as that is a state or local government’s place – except of course all of our military need to receive all of the care that is needed for them and I do mean the BEST of care possible. I really do not think this is the area where cuts are made except for inefficiencies/beauracracies.

Since I am a realist and do not see Social Security being overturned as unconstitutional (as it is) we need to come up with a plan that supports savings accounts/stocks etc.  Pick an age and make it 50 years and older or 45 – I do not care and everyone below will need to continue paying taxes to fulfill the current agreement for that age up to death. For everyone else it from now on it will be a choice – a savings account with your state government, a savings account that you can not access until you retire (whatever age but you can not work anymore – you can invest but not work) or invest in stock market/mutual funds that again are not accessible or any combination of the 3.  This will be totally tax free.  So now citizens are personally responsible for their own lives.

I think we need to actually clarify our economic system so that it cannot change with the wind and have an amendment to the Constitution stating that we are a capitalistic country and believe in unrestricted free trade.  That cronyism eliminated as far as is legally possible and that the rules of capitalism (contract law, property rights, laws against fraud and theft, be considered sacrosanct and inviolable).

We need an amendment to the Constitution stating that every citizen has the right to work and not be forced to join and pay a union.  Also added into that all government positions cannot be unionized.

We need to support minimum standards for all grade levels and have a national test for those standards.  All states can do their own thing with public schools as I propose the Department of Education is eliminated but all students must meet the standards we desire for our citizens.  Keep in mind that I believe that you do not lower standards but always raise them and eventually more people will achieve them.  We need an electorate that understands our government and Constitution, can read to a 12th grade level, do basic math (multiplication tables in their head to 12’s), know how to count money without a machine, understand basic English grammar and how to write at a 12th grade level, need to understand the actual history of our country and a general understanding of world history – particularly how it affects current events as with a little study you become aware of how things repeat themselves (might that be because no one ever learns or hears about the lesson?) and science.  Again religious beliefs have no place in the school except that you can believe what ever you want but need to understand what others in the scientific community are doing and why whether you accept that or not.  Our platform should be clear in stating that school is not for preaching anyone’s belief system – again that is what parents are for!   Also that our platform clarifies that government is not there to promote whatever the latest scientific trend is.  Oh and by the way I do not think that government should be concerned with nutrition pyramids or picking foods for us but I would support offering physical activity requirements in public schools – whatever happened to Kennedy’s physical program?

All insurance can go across state lines and federal standards will be set for insurance companies (based on protecting the consumer not giving them something)

A federal fund will be set up for states to borrow from for emergencies at the going interest rate.  The loan will be based on percentage of costs and will not fulfill all that is necessary as again citizens must accept personal responsibility for choice in life such as where to live.

The federal government stops funding anything not allotted to it in the Constitution (just about everything we are currently involved in).

We do not financially assist another country unless there is a real time return for that – can’t think of that occurring other than rebuilding after wining a war.

There is so much more but I think I make my point – social issues belong in the social market not the government.  Freedom is paramount as long as you hurt no one – or your rights extend to where they touch mine but not beyond.  Personal responsibility is the guide for all laws and regulations.

I think that any reasonable person would see that Romney would have no issues with agreeing on most of these points (if not all) and Santorum would have issues with most of them.  To me that clarifies the issue as to whom is conservative and whom is not.  Gingrich would also have issues as it would not allow him as President to have those BIG IDEAS as they have nothing to do with the Federal Government.

And while I am rambling I have a point to make regarding the Moon site that Gingrich and his followers want – am I the only person to remember that there is an international treaty that states that no country can do anything proprietary on the Moon?

So any of you who want to join and support my platform, add to it or clarify it let me know and those who have issues with it – let’s discuss it rationally.

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Debt Budget, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Teaching, Uncategorized, Unions, Welfare

The Possible Future of the Republican Party

 

“Look at Europe, you fool. Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the proletariat.

That’s one version. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the harsh reality of two continents already? If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective. Give the fools a chance, let them have their fun – but don’t forget the only purpose you have to accomplish. Kill the individual. Kill man’s soul. The rest will follow automatically.”—Elsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead [emphasis added]

 

Believe it or not Rick Santorum’s campaign gives me hope.   Why?  Because it proves beyond the shadow of all doubt that religious fundamentalists do not control this party.  Let’s be honest cowards are voting for Ron Paul, social conservatives for Santorum, (I haven’t the foggiest clue as to why anyone is voting for Newt) and fiscal conservatives are voting for Mitt Romney.

 

 

But listening to Santorum’s speech did make me think about his new theme: Freedom.  It’s ironic that this would be his theme as it is something that he is opposed to in every area of existence.  We know that Ricky is a social conservative and thus opposed to liberty in the social arena…no we need government laws and regulations backed with up with fines and jails and guns to control that part of the world.  From his earmarks, pro-union stance and wish to control the economy through loopholes and regulations we know he is opposed to economic freedom.  And while you might say at least he’s a conservative on the foreign policy arena, but you’d be wrong, as he doesn’t believe in holding the line against Islam-fascists or Communist China because of the relevant communist or fascists part…he opposes them because they’re Muslims and atheists…after all he has said it’s a “holy war” (his words not mine) that we’re fighting right now.  Rick Santorum, American Jihadist.  He’s not interested in beating back tyranny; he’s interested in beating back non-Christians.   In every form of political thought this man is opposed to liberty and freedom in every way possible.

And while Santorum may be in the running for worst politician in the history of presidential politics, it did start me thinking about the nature of freedom in relation to political parties (yes I’m weird and the most boring conversationalist…deal with it).

 

So, contrary to that two axis graph the libertarian love so much (with one axis being economic freedom and one being social freedom) modern politics is actually a balance of three axes.

  1. Economic Freedom ranging from zero freedom with socialism/communism (the name changes the government doesn’t) to full freedom (anarchy) with true capitalism being about 80-90% of the way to complete freedom.
  2. Social Freedom with communism/theocracy/fascism being at the zero end and again capitalism in the 80-90% range of full freedom.
  3. And finally you have the third access which I will call interventionism (for a much more protracted discussion see Republicans and Reincarnation).  This is the idea of whether or not we feel that freedom should be extended throughout the world as “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” at the full freedom side or feel that tyranny, socialism and oppression are fine so long as they stay outside our borders at the zero freedom side, we call this side isolationism.

Sadly, right now each political party embraces at least one of these evils.  Democrats embrace the evil of restricting freedom in the economic sphere.  Libertarians embrace the evil of allowing oppression in other nations so long as it doesn’t bother them (much like Whigs in antebellum America or isolationist pre-WWII who didn’t mind 6 million people dying so long as it wasn’t them…we all see how well those policies worked)…and the Republican party embraces the evil of government intrusion in the social sphere.

 

And this is why I chose the quote I did to open this post.  The system seems rigged (more by human nature to want to control something not by nefarious evil conglomerates trying to control our every choice) to leave us with a between government control in the social sphere or government control in the economic sphere…and if we’re too disgusted with those we go to a party that turns a blind eye to evil, no matter how atrocious and antithetical to our most basic principles,

 

But there is hope.  Because right now we are seeing a rejection of that very evil represented in Rick Santorum (yes he embodies all three evils, but he’s running on his social “conservative” agenda).

 

But there is more hope than just the destruction of Rick Santorum and the defeat of the social conservatives in this election…but the possibility of the defeat of them for all time.

 

Look at it this way.  Almost every Tea Party candidate who ran in 2010 won.  The ones who didn’t, the ones who cost the GOP in the Senate (most notably Angle and O’Donnell) were portrayed not as fiscal conservatives but as wacky social conservatives (I’ll not be getting into whether that depiction is correct or not).  So it appears that when Republicans run on fiscal issues they win. 

 

 

Or to look at it another way.  The highest Santorum has ever been is 39% of Republican voters who make up only about 36% of the voting public.  In other words social conservatives who place their social conservatism above all else make up only 14% (39% of 36%…and those are kind of high end estimates, it’s probably lower in reality) of the electorate.

 

Only 14%.  14% that has no choice but to vote for the Republicans or let a party that allows its economic liberalism turn into an excess of social liberalism.  Do you really think that 14% of the electorate that identifies itself as independent or libertarian aren’t driven from the Republican Party by its perverse adherence to social conservatism…to a belief that the government should tell people how to live their lives.  Hell, I know a few blue-dog Democrats who are fiscally conservative and whose only argument against Republicans is the pointless social concerns.

 

If we drove them out of power now, if we made this a party of fiscal and foreign policy concerns, and only of social moderation, that the government takes no sides in social issues (you know, as the Founders wanted)…and leave social issues to individuals, churches and local communities,  then we would experience not a drop in election results, but a surge, a powerful surge that would not only be a death blow to psychosis that is social conservatives desire to rule over people’s bedrooms but also to the evil that is the Democrat desire to rule over our wallets.

 

Or we can just keep going as we always have and let these lunatics have too much influence in our party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Republicans and Reincarnation, Taxes, Tyranny

Paul Ryan’s Budget

I love, LOVE!, the new Ryan plan…it attacks all of the problems, makes cuts to all the waste, brings in more revenue, shrinks the government and understands the purpose of government without going to far too fast (as a Ron Paul might try to do).

But don’t take my word for it…look over it and decide for yourself.  The Budget Committee Page…and…THE PLAN ITSELF.



The Full Version of the Conference Here

We should support any politician who supports this plan, and condemn, harass,  push to support, or push out any politician who opposes this, the only plan that will work.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Social Security, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Welfare

Romney Wins! An Open Letter to the Republican Party

Okay Romney won.  (Even with Rick call in the Dems).  For those of us who support Romney (i.e. those of us who actually looked at his record instead of swallowing what the media is trying to force feed us) this is a good day…

Mr. President

But to the rest of the Republican Party, the Newt supporters, the Santorum supporters (those who aren’t Democrats), the Paul supporters, we need to talk.  Guys, look, you’re just not going to get it.  The wins tonight give Romney another boost and hurt your guys even more.  Before tonight he had 99 delegates.  Tonight he got 29 from Arizona and will probably get around 15 for Michigan.  Add to that he’s ahead in Puerto Rico (23 delegates), Maryland (37), D.C. (19), Delaware (17), California (172), New Jersey (50), and Utah (40) and those are all winner-take-all primaries.  That’s 501 delegates of the needed 1144.  Wisconsin is the only other winner-take-all state with only 42 delegates.  Now add in his commanding leads in Massachusetts (41) and Virginia (49) and Mitt’s already got over half of the votes he needs locked down.  (When you factor in all the proportional votes from Super Tuesday (480, counting MA and VA which we know Mitt’s going to win) and add in all the other winner-take-all states Mitt will likely have close to 700 (quite possibly well over 700, but I’m being generous to Newt and Rick) delegates locked down by the end of Super Tuesday.  Which would mean of the 1103 delegates up for grabs Mitt would only have to get another 444 (give or take how many off from 700 he has) .  Wow, only 40% of the delegates.  I’m sure that will be so difficult especially after Newt and Rick go bankrupt as they’re about to any day now.  Face it.  Romney is going to be the nominee.  There will be no brokered convention, there will be no split party.  Romney’s it.  He’s also the one that Obama is afraid of!

Now you have three options.  You can pout and do nothing.  You can continue attacking Romney and do Obama’s work for him.  You can work to make sure we win the House and the Senate.

I understand if you can’t get behind Romney (well actually I can’t in this particular case, but as I would not vote for Santorum if he were the nominee I’m not going to say you must vote for Romney or work to get him elected if he were the nominee…although my anti-Santorum stance is based on reason, facts, and patriotism…your anti-Romney bias is based on what again?  Lunacy?  Anyway…) .  But even if you don’t like Romney pouting helps no one.  Civic duty requires that you participate actively in government in any way you can.

And attacking Romney is also not a valid option as it only helps Obama.  Levin, Hanity, Malkin, Shapiro, Murdoch, Limbaugh, Michael Reagan* I’m talking to you.  Shut the hell up.  Don’t like him.  Fine, don’t support him.  But that doesn’t mean you help our mutual enemy.  Even all of the Newt and Santorum supporters out there need to get a clue that as many problems as they have against Romney (all of them justified by lies, half-truths and misinformation) he’s better than Obama.  If you don’t like Romney, please just spend the rest of the year until November attacking Obama and his cronies and ONLY Obama and his cronies.  Hell, day after the election I’ll join you in being a critic of President Romney when he does the wrong thing, as I will critique any president when they screw up…but until we get Obama out hold off on attacking Romney, please, for the good of the country—you know that thing you claim to love (although by supporting Santorum I’m not really seeing it).

The third option, the one everyone who doesn’t like Romney should be taking, is making sure you do everything in your power to make sure that the House stays in Republican control and that the Republicans  take hold in the Senate.  According to RealClearPolitics 5 seats up for election are safe Republican seats with another 8 in the toss up category (and 4 Democratic seats are in the Lean Democrat category).  The goal, for those of you who don’t want to back Romney should be to make sure that both House and Senate are staunchly conservative, Tea Party Conservative, not just Republican.  So, playing in your ball park for just a second, if Romney is the flip-flopping politician you claim he is (even though he’s not) then he will have no choice but to always veer conservative as that is the only thing he will be able to do with a conservative Congress.  Hitting Romney will only waste resources in getting what you want, conservative policies.  And to those commentators I mentioned, given that you’re all very well off and you’ve already hurt this party with you divisive rhetoric, you should be donating the maximum to every major Senate and House race you can—that is the only way you can make up for this draw out violation of the 11th Commandment (especially considering most of you are backing an extreme economic liberal like Santorum).

So it’s up to you.  Show you care about this country or continue hitting Romney.  Your choice.

*On a side note I would like to take the time to point out that Michael Reagan’s endorsement of Newt shows that intelligence may be more dependent on genetics than environment.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

The Prop 8 Decision and Why It Hurts Gay Rights

So the Prop 8 Court decision came in a few weeks ago and along with the Birth Control Mandate helped push Rick Santorum up in the polls.

And the gay rights community rejoiced.  Which I found odd, as usually, people don’t rejoice in  their own downfall (ignoring the Obama inauguration and mythical behavior of Nero).  Wait, ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is bad for gay rights?  Yeah it is.

Let me explain since I know there must be some confusion.

Basic human psychology is that people hate being forced to do something.  They really hate it.  But when they think they’re doing it themselves they’ll embrace doing that thing that they hated only a minute ago and go even a step further.  Think about the American Revolution, we started a war on a 2 cent tax on per metric ton of a breakfast beverage because it was forced on us but when it was our own representatives doing it, hell, let’s tax everything to death!  (A little hyperbolic, I’ll admit, but I think you get the point).   People are stubborn by nature, but Americans especially have a “bet me” attitude.  Another example, when was alcohol consumption highest?  When it was illegal.  To this day when does the alcohol intake for most people drop radically? The day after they turn 21…when it’s no longer a chance to stick it to the man, it loses a little something.

So what does this have to do with gay rights?  Well let me state a few things up front.  I think it is safe to say that the idea of complete equality in civil unions (as you know I advocate for getting rid of marriage and having both gay and straight couples have civil unions because marriage is a religious concept and thus the government shouldn’t be involved) is not a question of “if” but a question of “when.”  So long as Obama doesn’t finish the job of utterly destroying the world economy and sending us back a hundred years, I think it’s safe to say that in a hundred years gay rights battles will be an issues you read about in history books and occasionally hear Grandpa and Grandma (or any combination thereof) talk about.  But a hundred years is about 4 generations from now and while the question is not “if”, it is a question of “when.”  When? Will we have to wait those 4 generations or will it only be 1 generation?  Well, if the gay rights movement keeps trying to use the courts it will be all 4, because, as I said people hate having thing forced on them, even if that thing is in itself reasonable.

Don’t believe me.  Let’s look at some time lines:

1993 Hawaii Supreme Court finds that a statue limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional

Sept. 1996 Clinton signs Defense of Marriage Act

Dec 1996 Hawaiian  judge rules in favor of marriage being applied to same-sex couples

Nov 1998 Hawaii and Alaska voters approve of constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Dec 1999 Vermont Court rules same-sex couples can’t be denied benefits granted to opposite-sex couples

Nov 2000 Nebraska approves constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Nov 2002 Nevada does the same

2003 Massachusetts declares legislature has to enact same-sex marriage (on a side note, between this and Romney’s dealings with the legislature…what the hell kind of constitution do they have in the commonwealth?  The balance of powers seems completely out of whack)

2004 Massachusetts approves same-sex marriage (and San Francisco and Portland try to jump on the band wagon via fiat, but are shot down)

Aug 2004 Missouri joins the ranks of burdening their Constitution with silly marriage amendment

Sept 2004 Louisiana joins in the insanity

Nov 2004 Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, N. Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah join in the free for all.

April 2005 Kansas joins in the act

May 2005 District judge rules Nebraska version Unconstitutional (he is later overturned)

Nov 2005 Texas joins the club

June 2006 so does Alabama

Nov 2006 Colorado, Idaho, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin join in

May 2008 California Supreme Court rules the state ban is unconstitutional.  Marriages start in June.

Sept 2010 New Hampshire judges also order same-sex marriage

Nov 2008 California (prop 8), Arizona, Florida put in Constitutional bans.

I could go over more but I think you get the drift.  If you notice the way I group them every major act against gay rights and gay marriage is preceded by a court action in favor of gay rights.  Every action has an opposite reaction, and in politics it is always an unequal reaction.

But guess what, you never see this reaction when a state by popular vote or by legislative vote expands the equality of same-sex couples or even votes in gay marriage.  Because that is the will of the people, not legislation from the bench.

Think about it.  California, possibly the most liberal state in the nation voted in Prop 8.  Back in 1997 two-thirds of the state wanted an expansion of rights to gay couples.  California where half a dozen laws passed by the legislature expanding the rights of gay couples met with nary a complaint except from the radical fringe.    Yet this is the same California, that is 2008 voted to ban gay marriage by 52%.  Did a mass of rejects from Rick Santorum’s congregation suddenly get voting rights in the most liberal state in the nation…or did we see people give a very predictable reaction to having a court shove something down their throat that they weren’t ready for.

Should there be perfect equality?  Yeah.  Are people who violently oppose gay rights idiots?  Without question.  But right, wrong, or indifferent these are beliefs that are based on religion and tradition and habit.  They take time to change and forcing that change will only result in a violent backlash as we have seen with EVERY court decision in favor of gay rights.

The gay rights movement better pray that the Supreme Court takes the Prop 8 case and that they uphold Prop 8…because if they don’t, you will see a federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman clear both the House and the Senate without much debate and you will see it ratified by three-quarters of the states.  If California is willing to pass such a ban, do you really think any of the other states will put up much of a fight?  And it will take generations to get that stain of an amendment overturned.

Winning the Prop 8 case is Pyrrhic victory if it results in losing the war.

So am I suggesting that the gay rights movement just roll over?  No.  But fighting in the courts will only lead to disaster.  So what should the movement be focused on?  Well, for one stop trying to force the movement down people’s throats in other areas.  California mandating that gay history be taught  in public schools is insulting at the high school level (to single out people as being worthy of being mentioned for being a minority is just stupid no matter the minority, they’re either important to history or not, and if they are, usually their minority status is not important to what they did, and if it is, then that’s part of history and should be brought up)…but in elementary school  it’s just insane.  Most parents don’t want their elementary school children knowning heterosexual sex exists let alone gay sex, but go ahead make enemies of the middle class by forcing this into elementary schools.  I’m sure that will work great long term.

Leave the courts and laws alone for the moment.  It’s only going to breed negative reaction.  It would be better to focus on science and the social aspect.

By science I mean looking into the real cause of homosexuality and bisexuality.  I’ve searched, some studies I’ve seen suggest that the majority of humanity is bisexual and it’s just socialization that pushes a person one way or another (which would bizarrely give that stupid therapy shit some credence in a roundabout way, which no matter how silly the therapy is, you have to admit that would be ironic) and others that say it’s only a very small segment of society.  And while there seems to be some leads on genetics for male homosexuality, the cause of female homosexuality is still elusive.  From a scientific point of view, those are some friggin’ big gaps…ones that allow bigots to doubt (keep in mind these are the same people who can see fossils of 15 species that show a clear development over time but because number 16 is missing you can’t say 17 evolved from the others…I know they’re stupid, but fewer gaps you have the more of them you’ll peel off).  Facts help your case (and also debunking some of the pseudoscience I found on the web saying that there is no genetic component…I’m not going to include links because I was screaming at the computer screen and for me gay rights is a minor issue in the grand scheme of thing…I can only imagine if you were drawn to this blog because you were interested in the topic).  Facts will help win the middle which is what the movement needs.

And by social I mean, go with that “we’re just like you” campaign and get rid of the gay pride parades.  Really, like the court cases, those parades aren’t doing anyone any favors.  All those parades do is make the gay rights movement seem the counterbalance to the nutjobs from Westboro, it makes it seem to the general public that both sides are crazy.  That is not helping.  It needs to be clear Westboro Baptists=f’ing insane, gay rights movement=not insane people.  Do that you win.

Look, just recently the general public is finally in favor of gay marriage, according to Gallup but it’s not a large margin.  And if the movement continues demanding to force things before people are ready it will only result in those gains being temporarily destroyed.  I understand wanting it now.  I understand having to deal with the idiots who are close minded being infuriating.  But it is what is.  And not dealing in reality, showing a little patience (even if ethically you shouldn’t have to) will get you what you want sooner, then a tactical withdrawal is better than ruining everything, creating a federal amendment against your goals and giving idiots like Rick Santorum a platform to run on.

8 Comments

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics

Marriage, Religion and Society… (And in a roundabout way, another reason why Santorum’s a jackass)

Ugh…I hate social issues.  I would love it if everyone could just keep their personal lives personal and not worry about what other people are doing so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  And while I am quite the civil libertarian in caring about other people’s lives it might have something to do that my personal life could not be more bland and conservative…which may be why I couldn’t care about other people’s lives.

But because of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber (otherwise known as Obama and Santorum, I’m not sure which is which) and their ilk there will be no end to the discussion of these otherwise stupid topics for weeks if not months….no, no let’s not talk about saving the economy or dealing with absolute evil abroad, birth control and gay marriage is far more important than whether or not there will actually be a first world society in a generation. Far more important.

I’ve dealt with Obama’s overstep of executive authority in the guise of an attack on religious freedom so I guess it is now time to once again take on Santorum.  Of course that’s a whole mess of issues right there.  Well…let’s go to a few quotes:

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman[.]”

“The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

“Do they have a right? Should society do their best to make sure that that child has the best opportunity to be raised by that mother and father? The answer is yes.”

…and if you think those quotes have a distinct communist/collectivist call for 1984, Brave New World, or Anthem I wouldn’t blame you.  Really I’m fascinated to hear that marriage has nothing to do with love (makes you wonder what his home life is like…I’ve got an idea let’s see if his wife or daughters ever smile while on camera in a way that isn’t obviously forced to see how happy that home life is.)  So in Rick Santorum’s mind you are here only to have children to propagate society and we give special privileges to these breeders…(It makes you really frightened of his call to TRIPLE the tax credit for children…because in a time when any right thinking conservative wants to lower taxes and CLOSE all loopholes, he wants to open loopholes with a crowbar so as to encourage massive overpopulation because it’s working so well for the third world).   Okay we can agree that Rick Santorum doesn’t have a single neuron firing in that head of his.  But that still doesn’t put the general issue of marriage off the table even if I’m Santorum is lord high king of the idiots.  So let’s talk marriage…

Yes marriage is an important function of society.  Rick is wrong about it being the basis of society, that has always been and always will be the individual…but individuals need human companionship (usually in the form of friendship and marriage, and if they’re one in the same, then you’re blessed).  Now is marriage only for the “uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society”?  Not really.  People were having children and caring for them long before marriage, although marriage does help raising them, certainly, no one would argue that.  But it is not having a mother and father that helps, it’s having two parents that helps (increased income, increased ability for child care, increased experience) and anyone who thinks that gay people make bad parents isn’t just crazy, they’re flying in the face of a boat load of research (Just one example here).  But raising children isn’t the only thing marriage is for.  If Santorum wanted to ever crack a history book (which I don’t think he has ever done given his perverted views on the Founding Fathers view of liberty ) he might learn that property rights have traditionally had far more to do with marriage than children do…but that would require Santorum to care about property rights, which are an individual right and as he has much respect for individual rights as any communist or Asharite.  And while history is filled with moments where society progressed just fine without any strict government rules on marriage I would be foolish to say that marriage isn’t a great support for society.  However if Santorum and his followers think that gay marriage is a danger to marriage, or even if it’s that  relevant in the face of other government hits at marriage, then they’re idiots.

Granted, as I’ve said before, I would like the federal government and all the states to say that marriage is a religious institution and thus strike the term marriage from every law on the books…civil unions for everyone!  It’s up to your church whether to call what you have a marriage or not, not the government.  This has the advantage of A.) not letting government dictate what a religion can do (we’ll come back to this) (social conservatives get what they want) B.) Everyone will be equal (social liberals get what they want) C.)Nobody gets to win (because I hate people who think social issues are a function of government) and D.) Jackasses like Santorum will have to shut up (everybody on the planet wins).  All the legal privileges of the marriage could be easily transferred to these civil unions, but as it lacks the name it lacks the attack on a religious institution that expanding it encompasses.

But I will still admit that marriage, and a two parent family is important to a functioning society. You’d be a damn fool to deny that…but then again both social conservatives and social liberals are damn fools given how they act. Social liberals are idiots for what they’ve already done to weaken those social structures (and I’ll get to that in just a minute) and social conservatives are idiots for fighting a defensive war against gay marriage (which has nothing to do with the strength of the social institution, but it is very visible which suggest that their cause is more cynical demagoguery than heartfelt concern) rather than an offensive war against the liberal policies that actually have done harm to marriage and society.

But back to my statement about liberals actually having done some stuff have actually done to undermine the social institution of marriage (hint gay marriage isn’t going to be anywhere on this list).

Welfare and the Great Society.  Let’s pay unwed mothers money for having children.  That makes sense.  Because every economist from any school, be it Keynesian, Chicago or Austrian, will tell you that when you subsidize a behavior or product you get more of it.  Subsidize unwed children, guess what, you de-incentivize actually getting married or waiting until marriage to have children.  (This would also be tied to my opinion that Rick Santorum’s idea to triple the child tax credit when we have an over population problem is, well, brainless).  Really brain dead is that we pay for anything more than the first pregnancy.  I can see an argument for a safety net to help women who have had an accident, been dumped by the loser who got them pregnant, and need some help…one time is an accident (although I would prefer these to be run by counties and cities…not a distant bureaucracy in states and at the federal level).  But not two times.  And definitely not more than two.

Now if social conservatives really wanted to care about the well being of children and the defense of marriage as a social institution they would once again push for welfare reforms.  One that cut people off after the first pregnancy, ones that vigorously track down deadbeat dads (I wouldn’t mind upping what the minimum monthly payment is and bringing back debtors prison for those who won’t pay).  Or requiring the welfare recipients attend GED or job training to help ensure they get off welfare if they want to continue getting their check.  Or how about this one—we’ll keep track of every dollar you get in welfare payments you get from the government and the minute you start making over let’s say $25,000 a year the government will deduct 1% of your check until you’ve paid back what you took out, interest free because we’re not monsters (and the percentage of your check would go up slightly say 3% at $30,000 so forth and so on) this way no would ever view welfare as a free ride, thus removing many of the incentives for taking it.  But right now I’m hearing more about those evil, evil gays (who seem to be decent parents and no worse as couples than their straight counterparts) as what is ruining marriage.  Yeah couldn’t be the financial incentives against being married when having children.

Oh and speaking of financial incentives, why is that the call to end the marriage penalty at all levels has kind of disappeared?  As I recall the law passed under Bush to end the marriage penalty had a sunset date…isn’t that coming up?  How about this, offer a tax discount for those who get married.  Watch people get married and stay married when there are real financial incentives to do so.  Will some people get married for reasons other than love?  Probably, but how is that different from right now?  If you want to promote something don’t punish it.  But you haven’t heard that from social conservatives, now have you.  Hell, given the fact that children of single parent households have a higher likelihood of committing a crime, then financially incentivizing marriage would probably pay for the reduction in revenue via a drop in paying for imprisonment (among a whole mountain of secondary benefits, that was just the first one that came to me, trust me it would pay for itself ten times over).

I could go on, how Social Security and Medicare encourage people to dump bonds with their parents when they got old rather than bringing them into the household in a more stable extended family, how the government support for the liberal Teacher’s unions worked to destroy parental responsibility in raising their children, and a few other programs…but I think you get the point.  If social conservatives really cared about the state of marriage and the social benefits that the family brings there are things they could be doing that would be incredibly effective in strengthening the social institution.  But they would rather focus on something that has NOTHING to do with the strength of marriage.  (And liberals don’t go feeling self-satisfied about that last sentence, you actually have done some damage to the social institution of marriage, just because the conservatives are idiots and not calling you on it doesn’t make you less guilty.

Now social conservatives will probably come back with some stupid “gay marriage is the straw that will break the camel’s back” kind of argument.  But as we know in this case I think social conservatives are idiots.  If they really cared about the state of marriage and the need of married couple to properly raise children they would be attacking the liberal entitlement culture and not worrying about what gay people do.

Up next, why the Court decisions on Prop. 8 is actually the last thing the gay community should want because it’s going to hurt them…because the social liberal also need to be hit (with a peppering of insults against the right)

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Welfare

I didn’t settle for Romney, I support Romney…let me tell you why…

    This is the man I’m voting for…the man who said to a piece of scum OWS talking head “America’s right and you’re wrong.”

..fair warning, this is one of those ungodly long blogs I write where I channel the Founding Fathers ability to write in clear, simple, short 20 page essays. There was no other way. Either I could piecemeal it and everyone would pile on comments about well what about this and what about that and the complaints would drown out the fact that the 20 individual blogs deal with every objection…or I could do it as one long blog and deal with everything thus leaving nothing to hit Romney with or besmirch him…so go get a fresh cup of tea, maybe something to snack on…this may take a minute.

I have been fighting with Paul and Gingrich supporters for weeks. And in this time, while I have been warming up to Romney, I have noticed something about their arguments. When I was supporting Giuliani or Bachmann, I would point to reasons why I supported them, Paul and Gingrich supporters point to reasons why I shouldn’t support them. I have pointed out why I can’t support Paul or Gingrich, but I have also provided REASONS WHY I supported Giuliani or Bachmann at the time. I have yet to hear valid arguments for Gingrich or sane arguments for Paul. And I need a reason to vote for someone, just voting against someone isn’t enough for me, I need a reason to vote FOR someone.

And here is why I will vote for Romney. (And by the way, this is my last vote in this election. I cannot vote for a socialist like Obama. I cannot vote for anti-Semite Paul. I cannot vote for theocratic socialist Santorum. I cannot vote for characterless, principle-less, and immature Gingrich. They will all be equally bad for this nation. If I don’t get Romney it will be another year for a write in).

Now I will be honest I had a lot of preconceived notions about Romney coming into this. Back in 2008 he seemed to hype the Olympics more than Bain, which didn’t win me over. Plus back then I was working 60-80+ hours a week, plus trying to get Republicans and Reincarnation finished so I probably relied a little too much on media assessments and didn’t do my own research. That was my mistake, and my opinions have clearly suffered for it. Not that supporting Romney back in 2008 would have made much of a difference, but I now feel a little dumb for some (not all, but some) of the jabs I’ve taken at him in this blog.

So unlike Paul supporters whose argument boils down to “Drugs, and I’m a coward and don’t want to go to war, and the Gold Standard!” (as if they know anything about that) and Gingrich supporters whose argument boils down to “Uhhhh…uhhhh…he’s not Romney, and he did a few conservative things, once, many years ago….uhhhh….what affairs?”  I will give you reasons.

So in no particular order….

Romney on the 2nd Amendment

I’m going to start with some of the weak stuff. I’ve heard people say Romney is weak on the 2nd Amendment. Odd, given his B rating from the NRA.  Why a B and not an A? Well he seems to favor assault weapons bans, background checks (although as we now can do near instant background checks he doesn’t believe in the waiting period now), and stronger control in cities.  Kind of like my ideal candidate Giuliani. Honestly, reasonable people, are any of those things wrong?

Would I like someone who said something like it is the right of every American who is not a felon or mentally unstable to own a gun…and it is probably their responsibility to do so as well, or at bare minimum know how to use one. But I’m not getting that this year. The one bill about guns he signed in Massachusetts lessened state licensing laws for gun ownership…not exactly the gun control boogeyman he has been portrayed as…and certainly not the lunatics who tried to use a convoluted and criminal scheme to flood the cities with illegal guns as a justification to crack down on gun ownership.

So while I don’t think that puts him head and shoulders above any of the other candidates, he is certainly on par with them.

I wish the media would show more photos like this where he looks human...oh I forgot they want Obama.

Endorsements matter to me. Especially from politicians who actually know something about the person, because character matters to me. So when Newt gets the pseudo endorsement of that liberal RINO Sarah Palin, it says something to me about his lack of conservative credentials. When Newt gets the coveted endorsement of a 70 year old actor who deserved a Razzie for every role he ever did, and treats it like a major event…you have to worry. Besides Mitt has Gene Simmons and I’ll take the genius businessman of KISS over Norris any day.  Just think, KISS performs at the GOP convention.

And granted I wasn’t thrilled about the McCain endorsement. But McCain likes to be on the winning team, principle doesn’t matter, only that he’s on the winning team…like how much he sucked up to both Bush and Obama over the last 11 years.

Tim Pawlenty, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Ann Coulter. John Bolton!

You know Pawlenty, the guy who was bright enough to say we as a party need to ignore social issues right now because economic and foreign policy issues are what we need to address. Pawlenty who while he briefly ran for President, wasn’t so driven by his ego that when he saw he wasn’t getting traction immediately left. He’s a man of reason and character, thus his endorsement carries some weight with me.

Nikki Haley. Tea Party favorite. Enough said.

Chris Christie. Our favorite to challenge the unions, hold nothing back N.J. Governor.

Ann Coulter. Ms. Conservative herself.

Ambassador John Bolton the man we would all love to have yell at foreign nations and the U.N.

And of course former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.  Hastert stated “During my years in the House, I was an advocate for balanced budgets and low taxes[.] Mitt Romney stands up for these principles.” Gee, Hastert was in the House in the 90’s, I wonder if by his statement about years in the House was to suggest someone else wasn’t for balanced budgets and low taxes. We like and we trust these people because of their intelligence and ability to make good choices…I can’t see why we shouldn’t give this choice at least some credence.

Now there are some conservatives I respect that I have yet to hear from—Bachmann, Giuliani, J.C. Watts, Steve Forbes, Scott Walker—but I’ll be honest, even if they came out against Romney it wouldn’t completely sway my vote when given everything else.

Romney on Foreign Policy


“A strong America – a strong America is the best ally peace has ever known. This is a president with the spy drone being brought down, he says pretty please? A foreign policy based on pretty please? You got to be kidding.” – Mitt Romney

Romney seems to get what our president doesn’t. There is good and there is evil and that America is a force for good in the world. Always has been, always will be. And he seems to get that evil needs to have its ass roundly kicked on a regular basis. And I assume that every Republican has learned the lesson about invading countries without a plan on how to rebuild them (I really hope they have).

Again I think in this respect Romney is probably on a par with Gingrich…but certainly above Paul (but who isn’t?)…as for Santorum, who the hell knows? He probably wants to reestablish the Crusade States or some other whack-job crazy religious idea (the man makes Jerry Falwell look stable).
Romney on Civil Rights

Santorum’s attempt in S.C. to portray Romney as a racist because he didn’t want to give back felons their right to vote was pathetic. It was pathetic because it meant that Santorum thought it might win him some votes with the African American community (apparently Santorum thinks they’re all felons…excuse me while I try to find a time machine to send Santorum back to 1870 which was the last time his ideas were mainstream in the GOP…that or he was trying to pick up some Ron Paul voters.) It was pathetic because it has such a low respect for the law…you don’t want people to lose their right to vote for drug charges Rick, then legalize them, don’t do this half-assed shit.

My personal favorite is the look on Romney’s face the entire time. “Are you kidding me? Of course felons shouldn’t vote! Am I really on a stage with this dipshit? How did Bachmann get voted off the island before this loser?” And I’m glad he came out with a simple and straight forward argument that violent criminals voting and not falling into the pandering for votes trap that Santorum was trying to set for him.

Romney as Capitalist
I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, “You’re fired.”…

…and I can’t wait for him to tell that to a good portion of the bureaucracy.

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you could fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone isn’t giving the good service, I want to say, I’m going to go get someone else to provide this service to.”

…I like firing people who provide me service too. In fact I want to fire everyone involved in some services. Like the sadists who provide the service called Internal Revenue, fire all of them. Or that service of providing that is laughingly called airport security. Yeah all of them, you’re fired. And what about the joke that is the United States Postal Service, well I’m certainly going to make sure the person delivering the pink slips is encased in Kevlar, but you’re all fired too. Now Romney was talking about creating a system where we would actually lower the price of private health insurance and be in a position to fire the carriers if they didn’t provide what we needed, but I trust he’ll take that mentality to all of worthless halls of bureaucracy.

Let’s be honest here, before we even get to Romney’s track record as a capitalist, we have to deal with the fact that Newt Gingrich attacked Romney for being a good capitalist. He attacked capitalism. Not only was it incredibly stupid  Politically it’s hard to think of a greater sin or clearer sign of being on the wrong side for any position. It is doubly a sin for a supposed Republican—we’re supposed to know better. That and that alone should be the hallmark moment of why Newt can never be allowed back into politics…or in the words of my hero Rudy Giuliani, “What the hell are you doing, Newt? I expect this from Saul Alinsky. This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and the stuff you’re saying is one of the reasons we’re in the trouble we’re in right now, this total ignorant populist view of the economy that was proven to be incorrect with the Soviet Union, with Chinese communism.”

Now let’s deal with Romney as a capitalist. The man earned his investors a 113% on their investments!  Nobody has that kind of growth! In 77 of the deal that Romney was involved in 23 went bad. 30% of the deals went bad. In most venture capital firms it’s 30% of the deal work. I don’t know what he does, this aspect of business and finance is not my specialty, but whatever he and his people did, it worked.

Yes there were companies that failed and went bankrupt and everyone was let go. That’s capitalism. It’s called creative destruction.  We clear out the bad businesses that don’t work so that the new ones can grow. Without the creative destruction that clears away that which does not work you have the stagnation of the Soviet bloc nations, you have failure upon failure and no way to progress. It sounds cold to say that closing a business is a good thing, but which is worse closing GM because it makes crappy cars, letting all of its competitors buy up all the plants at fire sale prices, reopen them with the unions in an appropriate penitent state of begging to be let in, which means we can hire more people, which gives us cheaper cars which means we can spend more on other things …or subsidizing it at tax payer expense, keeping the unions powerful, giving the unions money to buy more politicians to help further drive up union power which drives up prices, fewer people employed, less money in the system at large. What do you say? You think creative destruction has its place…or should we dump another hundred million into Solyndra to keep it chugging along? I noticed no one complained when creative destruction kicked Enron and Bear Sterns in the ass as they rightly deserved. They needed to go. Lots of failing companies need to go so that capital and resources for new companies that work and are willing to innovate can grow. That is the only way you grow an economy. That is the only way you let it stay healthy. That is the only way you create jobs and the only way you help people.

And let’s not forget that creative destruction is what keeps companies from getting “too big to fail” as they would collapse long before they get to that level without goverenment help.

Romney, at Bain Capital, is the one who helped create Staples and dozens of other thriving businesses. Does Romney deserve credit? Yes. He is the one who personally managed some of these deals, he is the one hired (and if necessary fired) the people who worked there, he is the one who was where the buck stopped, and when it did it said profits, growth and jobs. And every one of those venture capital deals that worked out, every job they have created even after Romney left Bain, Romney had a hand in because he was the one who helped create it. Does he deserve all the credit? Certainly not. Bain has continued to grow even after Romney left…but the fact that he pulled off a major profit at the Olympics shows that Bain succeed because of Romney, not in spite of him.

I would also suggest you go to this Wall Street Journal article modestly entitled “Bain Capital Saved America” 

This is a man who knows how to get things done. He has shown it with Bain, at the Olympics and as Governor.

And more than anything he understands America better than most…

“I went off on my own. I didn’t inherit money from my parents. What I have I earned. I worked hard, the American way.”

That line, more than anything is what convinced me to love Romney. Now some liberals have already started whining that because his parents were well off they gave him good schooling all the way through his graduate degree that he did inherit his wealth…oh heaven forbid they did what every parent would love to do for their child, those terrible people. But you know what? I think there are lots of kids of wealthy families, families wealthier than the Romney’s, who did the same for their kids…when was the last time a Rockefeller did anything of value? A Kennedy did anything but make Joe’s ghost think ‘what the hell did I work so hard for?’…are you saying that by necessity the Gates children will do great things? You know, lots of people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth…not all of them choose to do something with it, hell very few do. Romney did. And that takes character, intelligence and drive. What more could I want.

Romney as leader

Okay this took me several days to get through everything between the pages, the articles it is linked to and verifying those statements through other sources. You can do one of two things. (1) You can take my word for the accuracy of this analysis or (2) you can go read the Wikipedia page on his Governorship  (when I read all of it and compared to all the linked articles and other sources there are a few things I wouldn’t have worded it that way, but it all seems a fair and accurate summary of his governorship, you may have a problem with WIkipedia, but trust me, you don’t want me listing 200 different links) and then judge for yourself if my analysis is correct. But here is what I see from Romney’s history in the executive branch of government. He is a businessman. And he approached everything like a businessman. He cuts costs, he cut bureaucracy where he could (Massachusetts seems to have a relatively weak governorship based on the obscene number of his vetoes that were overturned, 250 in a single year).

He ran the state on a principle of “Patronage will be replaced by professionalism, and secrecy will be replaced by openness.” And time and again he backed this up (if you want proof go look to see how he fired the idiot in charge of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.)

For instance he proposed indexing Massachusetts minimum wage to inflation. Yes is that an increase. Hell yeah. But let me ask you this…given the liberal nature of the Massachusetts legislature do you think that they would usually want to be limited by inflation? So, was the business call to index to inflation helping raise it or keeping it lower than it could have been?

Look, I spent four days researching his entire governorship. If you think I’m wrong do the research for yourself before you dismiss this evaluation. Every choice this man makes is based on a business decision of what can practically lead to long term savings and long term growth. I don’t agree with all of it on ideological grounds (Romneycare) but I see the pattern of his thoughts. Will it bring growth? Will it cut costs? Will it lower or keep taxes at the same level? Will it work? These seem to be the questions that drive the man. Don’t believe me, do the research yourself but he seems to always be pushing for the most fiscally conservative, pro business, pro growth, pro capitalism, pro freedom, policy he can get with the legislature he has to work with. His leadership is one of getting things done in a way that work, and not particularly caring about personal fame or aggrandizement. What a refreshing change that will be.
Now the fact of the matter is that I can’t remember if we’ve ever had a successful major businessman in the White House (Truman owned a few stores, but nothing major; Bush was a repeated failure at his businesses; and I don’t remember the bios of all the presidents from the 1800’s), it couldn’t hurt to try. Now the closest we’ve had in recent memory to successful businessman in the White House was that we had the former head of a major union in the White House in the 1980’s…and as I recall those were pretty good years.

Romney on Healthcare
Look I don’t like Romneycare. It has more problems than I can list. And I wouldn’t live in any state that had such a plan. However…like I said, he approached it like a businessman. He had a problem that Medicare was going to cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in the short term and more in the long term. And tax payers were going to end up paying for it one way or another. Like a businessman, he looked for a solution that solved this problem and didn’t raise taxes (you know unlike Obamacare). A lot of the really bad aspects of Romneycare, a lot but not all to be fair, were actually put in by the state legislature and Romney vetoed them, but his veto was overturned.  In his mind it was letting the state private insurance companies handle the problem rather than letting Medicare grow to take over all medical treatment at huge taxpayer expense (unlike Obamacare which is designed to drive private companies out of business). “It’s liberal in the sense that we’re getting our citizens health insurance. It’s conservative in that we’re not getting a government takeover.”


Hey notice how he acknowledges that there were parts that didn’t work, that he would not put in again if he could. Are we now critiquing the ability to learn from experience?

Go back and read for yourself all the stories. The way I read them is that the liberal legislature wanted to just put everyone on Medicare which would have killed private insurance and driven tax payer expenses into the stratosphere. His people came up with the mandate as a way to put everyone who could afford it on private insurance and cut tax payer payments. I have principled problems with it, but like I said he came at it from a business perspective, and found what at the time was the best way to save the private sector, keep costs down, and get it through the legislature. And though this be madness, yet there is method in it.

The fact remains he is campaigning on overturning Obamacare and has been since the moment any of us actually saw what was in it…he has said the federal government has no right to impose a personal mandate. And he has promised he will kill Obamacare if elected. At worst, if he’s just a politician, he will have to get it overturned…if, as I have come to believe, he is a man of principle he will definitely get it repealed.

Romney on the Budget


I love the liberal going “it’s all well and good” to have sane economic policy, with that condescending manner to reality only liberals have. And I’ve realized it’s his face that is winning me over. He has this look of “how did you escape the asylum and get here” as she is making her rambling statement/question. He has utter disdain for these morons and it’s killing him to not lay down the smack that this ditz deserves.

“The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we’re looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before.”—Romney on his veto of Mass. Legislature trying to spend money from the commonwealth’s rainy day fund.

Massachusetts had a $3 billion deficit when he took office, and a left the state with a surplus. And that was with a liberal legislature. Did he raise a few fees, yeah. Did he close a lot of loop holes? Hell yeah (which is a good thing). Did he raise the actual income tax rates? Nope. If he can do that again at the federal level we’ll be in good shape.

Romney on Education


“So, when I was governor, I fought for — actually, before I was governor, I fought for, during my election and thereafter, a program to have English immersion in our schools so our kids could learn in English. I think we agree on this, which is, you know what? Kids in this country should learn English so they can have all the jobs and all the opportunity of people who are here”

This is a man who proposed merit pay, shutting down failing schools and requiring English immersion. He vetoed the Massachusetts version of the Dream Act. What is not to like here?

Romney on Illegal Immigration

“It’s very simply this, which is for those who come into the country legally, they would be given an identification card that points out they’re able to work here and then you have an E-verify system that’s effective and efficient so that employers can determine who is legally here and if employers hire someone without a card, or without checking to see if it’s been counterfeited, then those employers would be severely sanctioned.”

Gee what a concept, go after the employers and you kill the very thing that brings illegal immigrants in. Yes this will not solve the drug cartel problems, but this is one of the first steps to getting rid of the illegal immigration problem in this country. (Clearly I’m going to support this as I already wrote on the fact that this is exactly what we need to do)

“Our problem is 11 million people getting jobs that many Americans, legal immigrants, would like to have. It’s school kids in schools that districts are having a hard time paying for it. It’s people getting free health care because we are required under the law to provide that health care.”

And as far as I know he’s the only candidate who is consistently bringing up the problem that illegal immigration has on funding for schools. So, bravo Romney.

The other little things.
I don’t trust charismatic people. I find charisma to be something I am very, very cautious about. Being charismatic doesn’t make someone a terrible person, but it does cause me to be very wary of them. Newt’s greatest virtue is that it’s fun to watch him dress down debate moderators…but when you get past that little of bit charisma, there’s not much there. And let’s be honest all Obama has is his charisma. I could go through history, but more often than not charisma leads to very bad leaders (Churchill and Reagan are the exceptions not the rule…Mao, Lenin, Hitler, FDR, George Wallace, Sarah Palin, they’re the rule for charismatic people…in case you’re wondering that list is put in order of evil from worst to just endlessly annoying). Romney has no charisma to speak of; this makes me trust what he says when he says it. (I’m going to get to that flip flop myth in a second, don’t worry).

He is not a man of warmth and charisma. He is a man of intelligence and drive. And I would rather have someone get the right thing done and do it in a poor way public relations wise than feel warm and fuzzy about doing the wrong thing. How about you?

This is the man I'm voting for.

My reservations

NDAA
I was less than thrilled when Romney defended NDAA in the S.C. debate. But here’s thing, look at what he says:

Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?
ROMNEY:” Yes, I would have. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda.
Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.
And I recognize, that in a setting where there are enemy combatants on our own soil, that could possibly be abused. There are a lot of things I think this president does wrong, lots of them, but I don’t think he is going to abuse this power and that if I were president I would not abuse this power. And I can also tell you that in my view you have to choose people who you believe have sufficient character not to abuse the power of the presidency and to make sure that we do not violate our constitutional principles.
But let me tell you, people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.”

I don’t think he knows what’s in NDAA. I don’t think he’s been briefed on the unconstitutional parts…his staff probably believes it would go over the heads of most voters, which may be a fair assessment. I think he has been on the campaign trail, doing so much that he hasn’t kept up on all current legislation. Who could? From his statements I think he thinks it just authorizes him to arrest terrorists—and what’s wrong with that? Let’s hope I’m right on this one.

And while I have problems with NDAA continuing such cowardly acts such as rendition…it would appear that the worst parts, the parts we were really worried about, with it applying to U.S. Citizens did not make it to the final bill, see sections 1021 e and 1022 b(1) of the final bill.  (Yeah I was a little dumbfounded by this as I didn’t hear when they took that part out either, but the applicability to U.S. citizens did not make it into the final draft).

 

Romney on Reagan

“Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

I’m not thrilled with that line about Reagan. Never have been. But then I looked at the context and it struck me as interesting.

Let me set the scene. 1994. Massachusetts. Democrats might not be beloved but memories of Bush and his idiot policies are still rightfully loathed. Senate race between Sen. Ted Kennedy (1 confirmed kill) vs. Mitt Romney.

Sen. Ted Kennedy: “Under the Reagan-Bush economic programs, under the economic programs you want to return to, the total number of children that are living in poverty, the total number of children out of wedlock — this has happened, you know we’ve had Republican presidents during this period of time and the cutting back of support systems for children and most of all for families to get jobs. If you’re not going to provide a climate and an atmosphere for men and women to be able to work and provide for their children, you’re going to see the breakdown of the family as well.”

Mitt Romney: “I mentioned nothing about politics or your position at all. I talked about what I’d do to help strengthen families, and you talked about Reagan-Bush. Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Would I want to distance myself from Bush? Yeah. Still do. And to his credit he wasn’t dumb enough to fall into Kennedy’s trap of changing the phrase Kennedy used “Reagan-Bush.” If he had changed it to “Bush” or “the last administration” Kennedy would have used that in front of a Massachusetts audience not to just demand he be placed into the Senate for the entirety of his existence but that, in a Massachusetts tradition dating back to 1692, the non-conformist must be hung for his heresy. Should he have phrased it better? Yes. However, as I would point out Polifact states “In our fact-check of the DNC ad, we couldn’t find any other references to Romney distancing himself from Reagan beyond the 1994 debate comment.” 18 years and that’s the only anti-Reagan quote you can find…hell the fact that he made it through the Reagan diaries wipes that out (I love Reagan and his writing style and I love thick books, but every time I look at that thing on my shelf I still can’t seem to bring myself to wade through it).

My response to his the most common attacks.

Flip-flopping. Most of his flip-flopping was on the abortion issue. As any regular reader of this blog knows there are about a trillion and one issues that I find more important than abortion—some of them involve discussion of the lint I find in my belly button. I couldn’t care less what his position on abortion is or if it changes regularly with the tides.

And then there is the fact that I like attack ads, not because they work all that well against the attacked, but they show you how desperate the opposition is and what their values are. But they can also show you what a candidate does stand for

So let’s take this video apart quote by quote…

  • For instance they have a clip of Romney saying “I think we do need economic stimulus”

His actual statement was:

“Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress would have dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could assign that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.
I’d move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We’ll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies. But let’s not make this a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects.
[italics added]

Wow, so his stimulus is across the board tax cutting! Exactly why are we opposed to that? And while we have become rather jaded when Obama says infrastructure repair, because I’ve yet to see a single pot hole fixed, let alone real work done…it’s not a bad idea in theory. Also notice in this January 2009 interview he predicted that we would have BS like Solyndra.

  • Then there’s all that stuff on abortion. As I said, I couldn’t care if I tried.
  • The Reagan thing I’ve dealt with.
  • Then they want to hit him for being a good capitalist…and the most legitimate source they can find, nut job extraordinaire Rachel Maddow of MSNBC (or Pravda as I call it). The rest is bizarre innuendo, followed by him saying he doesn’t want Congress to control the Fed…I don’t trust the Fed, but I have to agree I wouldn’t want Congress in control either, it would be even worse than now.
  • Okay the health care thing. He endorses an exchange. Okay I’m not thrilled with the insurance exchanges…but it’s not the health care mandate….you know the part we hate, the unconstitutional part. You couldn’t find video of Romney endorsing that? Not even tied to his statement of “you try and do better with the legislature I had”? And I also love that the state is “is putting together an exchange” future tense as if this was still in the planning stages (I love how they don’t include dates on this video) so probably before we had an idea of how horrible it was going to be. Also notice the tone of “I’m glad he’s doing that…everything else sucks.”
  • The immigration thing. Really? That’s the best you can do, that he hired someone who hired someone else and when he found out about it he told them to stop. Oh yeah, this man is weak on immigration.
  • The global warming things. Ummm. I don’t believe in global warming as a man caused problem is real (Also notice his word “contribute” not “cause”) but I live in Phoenix which gets to 120 every summer not because I live in the Arizona desert but because the concrete keeps the Sun’s heat in during the night creating a heat bubble that doesn’t end until October. So it is possible for humans to contribute to it getting hotter without “climate change” in the chicken-little doom and gloom way Al Gore means it to be true. And yes this is probably my weakest defense in this whole article, I admit that. But I don’t see clips of him endorsing cap and trade. And I don’t see him sitting next to Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Al Gore version of global warming.
  • Oh, the union thing. “I’m not speaking about” to “I endorse.” How is that a flip-flop? I oppose then I endorse is a flip-flop? “I’m not speaking about” is I believe political talk for, “look I haven’t done any research into this yet and I know how you guys ask me a loaded question and I’m not going to fall into that trap.”
  • The tax pledge thing that first picture has to be from his Senate race against Teddy, which means “I’m not going to sign a new tax pledge and give that damn Kennedy something to use against me” to 2 decades later.
  • The guns. How is signing a law and then saying we don’t need any more after that a flip flop?
  • Again not thrilled with his endorsement of TARP, but it’s hard to find anyone who didn’t support it. But notice he says he supports it because the funds were paid back…you know as if the program is over, it did its thing for its time and that it is no more. And then Obama kept using it as a slush fund for whatever bullshit he wanted to do. Are you surprised that someone who even supported the initial TARP program might have a problem with it being used past its usefulness?
  • The Auto industry thing. I can’t find the whole text of the statement…but let me take a guess here. He was probably talking about loosening regulation and lowering taxes that would have let it come back on its own which is actually in line with saying don’t get the government involved, and if the only way to save it is to let it die, then let it die, (and again I’m speculating here) but if you had a business environment conducive to growth it wouldn’t

This ad was done with some money and decent access to media clips. And this is the best they could find. And this was the best ad I could find after 2 hours of searching. Cherry picked statements taken out of context. Mixed with comedians and pundits. Yeah they keep saying the Romney has a reputation as a flip flopper, except for that abortion thing I’m not exactly seeing proof so much as hype to back up that assertion. You know kind of like Obama having a reputation as an intelligent human being, when all evidence suggests he’s really rather dumb. And Ron Paul having a reputation for believing in small government when in reality he is a major porker for useless spending his district. George Bush has a reputation as a Neo-Con…trust me that man knows nothing about spreading democracy nor has he ever believed in it…he just didn’t have anything else to latch onto for dear life on September 12th.

There is reputation and there is fact. Show me the anti-business laws he proposed to the Massachusetts legislature. Show me the socialist executive orders he signed. Show me bills he authored calling for a removal of constitutional rights. Or is all you have to justify your position of him flip-flopping cherry picked statements taken out of context? As someone of Newt Gingrich’s currently high reputation once observed “”Reputation is an idle and most false imposition, oft got without merit and lost without deserving.”

Has he changed his beliefs over time? Yeah. He’s said so himself. It’s called learning from experience and growing. But in everything Romney has had the attitude of looking at everything from a business perspective of solving the problem. He has admitted he’s wrong on things, but he has never shown the constant second-guessing himself that Obama touts as a virtue (when a major vice is trumpeted as a virtue you know there are problems… , he has acted with determination and followed through and when things didn’t work he tried something new. You know, he was a leader.
***

Some other attacks. There have been a lot of attacks on Romney’s investments with Fannie and Freddie and this or that. As he stated time and time and time again his investments are in a blind trust. Blind Trust. He doesn’t know where the money is at or what it is invested. He is actually paying someone to keep him ignorant of where his money is that way he doesn’t know if a position he is advocating is actually helping or hurting that company. Every other politician or hopeful politician should try it…in fact Congress should be required to have them instead of their rampant insider trading deals. He is doing by his choice what should be done by everyone with control over the laws and people are hitting him for this, it’s insane.

And then there’s tax BS. Yeah he makes a lot of money. It’s taxed at about the 15% rate which all investments are taxed at. (If you think he’s paying too little for investments, you’re insane because to raise that rate would kill what is left of the economy. What we need to do is lower the other taxes to be at that level, and the only way we’re going to do that is by electing a real conservative, like Romney. Then you have the 15% percent he gave to charity. Did you give 15% last year…well he’s rich…Obama’s making good money on his book sales, and he gave 1% to charity …and there is the 10% tithing he gave to the church. Go on, hit the Mormons….let that little bigot out. Meanwhile, obviously as a New Ager I have doctrinal issues with the Mormon Church, to put it mildly, and I might even have some questions about how the church is run, but I will never critique a person for giving to their church. And if there is one thing to be praised about the Mormon church, it’s that they use the 10% to help their own when they need…argue theology with them all you want, but you have to concede there is a church that has not set up as wonderful a system to help and aid their member when times are tough as the Mormons have. So in total it apparently came to around 42% of his income went to someone other than himself. Go on; tell me capitalism breeds avarice and heartlessness. Tell me he needs to be taxed more. Oh, and by the way, did you forget he didn’t take a salary when Governor of Massachusetts. And don’t even get me started about what this would all look like if considered the issues of double taxation.

And if you want to show your ignorance of investment by bringing up the Swiss and Cayman accounts, go here.

A final word.
Ron Paul supporters constantly perplex me. Their argument seems to be that the executive branch is too powerful and power needs to returned to legislature…so let’s elect an egomaniac to the executive and I’m sure he’ll give power back to the legislature. Uh-huh. But despite their faith in their lunatic messiah, they are right that power does need to be returned legislative branch. But let’s say we get what we want, that we get everything we want, we make gains in the House, we take a filibuster proof Senate, with lots of Tea Party blood in both…how would the candidates fair?

Santorum would get nothing done with that Congress as he would veto everything until his bill making abortion and homosexuality a death penalty crime was passed and himself named high priest of America.

Paul. Not quite sure. I know you’d have the executive order to switch to the gold standard, thus killing the U.S. economy, and probably the world economy with it. Then there would probably be an executive order for forced relocation of all undesirables. I’m pretty sure he’d demand the Sudetenland be turned over to his control. And maybe then the invasion of Poland. After that who knows. There might be some finality to the solutions he comes up with.

Joking aside (but that’s all Santorum and Paul deserve), Gingrich has a long standing history of being hated by everyone. EVERYONE. People in Congress especially. That man has burned more bridges than he has dollars in his Tiffany’s credit account. At a time when you need a conservative to work with conservatives he will block anything that isn’t his idea and demand that whatever is his idea be unchanged and passed in the exact form he wants it or it will be vetoed. And his attacks on capitalism reveal that his plans will not be the pro-business, pro-growth, small government we need. It’s not that he believes big government is the problem, Newt just believes that big government not controlled by him is the problem. If you give him a fully Republican Congress he will not work with them, he will as usual play the petulant child and not get anything done, and then the GOP and only the GOP will take the blame for the failure. If you give him a mixed Congress he will not do anything to gain the few conservative Democrats we need to overturn Obamacare, get rid of the unconstitutional portions of NDAA, scrap most of the unnecessary regulation and get things done. God help us if you gave him a liberal Congress…there’s a fifty percent chance he would lock himself in the White House and pout…and a fifty percent chance he would back stab us all and cozy up to his next wife Nancy Pelosi (they seemed so cozy on the that video…maybe it’s the bills 418 they cosponsored together that leads me to make that statement).

No matter how you play it a Gingrich presidency is as much a disaster as Obama.

Now, on the flip side, if you have a liberal Congress, as with Massachusetts experience tells us he will work with them to lessen the blow as much as possible. With a split Congress he would likely be able to reach out to the Blue Dog Democrats and get some real conservative fiscal and economic policy passed. And if we can take both houses of Congress and put Romney in. I see regulation cuts. I see bureaucracy cuts. I see massive spending cuts. I see the end of Obamacare. I see less regulation. I see strong military, stronger state government working with not against the federal government, real growth, real jobs, real prosperity and real freedom.

***
So Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Obama supporters? What do you have? And don’t just tear apart my arguments. Give me a reason to vote for your guy. I gave you reasons for mine; I didn’t just tear down yours. Can you provide the same level or proof that your guy will be better? I doubt it.

And keep in mind, I could have gone on longer on a lot of these issues than I did…it’s just I had to cut this off somewhere…

This is the man I’m voting FOR.  I’m not voting against someone else, I’m voting for Romney.

4 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Ann Coulter, Budget, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rudy Giuliani, Taxes, Unions, Welfare

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”–Edmund Burke, considered to be the father of modern Conservative thought

No, that’s not the stupid quote.  I don’t think Burke ever said a stupid thing in his life.  Even the points I would disagree with Burke on vehemently would still be genius.

I just quotde that to frame this idiotic statement from last night’s GOP Debate.  This little tidbit comes from lover of big government, regulations and unchecked executive power, uber-liberal Rick “What Constitution?  I have my wacky interpretation of the Bible!” Santorum.

 And with right-to-work, look, I represented the state of Pennsylvania, which is one of the — which is not a right-to-work state. If you look at who voted for the right-to-work bill in the Congress, those who came from right-to-work states voted for it. Those who came from non-right-to-work states represented their states. I wasn’t going to vote in Washington, D.C., to change the law in my state.
I support right-to-work. I actually, as president, will sign and advocate for a right-to-work bill, but when I represented the people of Pennsylvania, I made the decision that I wasn’t going to do in Washington and change the law in my state when my state didn’t want to have that provision in their laws.

So let me get this straight, you support right to work, but you voted against it?  Oh I’m sorry, I misspoke.  Rick Santorum filibustered a right to work bill.  He didn’t just vote against it, he tried to prevent it from even getting a vote.  Way to support your supposed values, Rick.  This wasn’t like Romney’s excuse of “I had a liberal legislature, let’s see you do better.”  This was “I joined the enemy to actively prevent you from engaging in a basic capitalist right which is covered by your right to pursue Happiness.”  It was “I thought my getting reelected was more important that the Declaration and Constitution and reason.”

Oh yeah, I trust this guy.  I trust him to not only try to legislate every aspect of my personal life, but to continue to sell us out to the unions every chance he gets.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Declaration, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Unions

Democrats Brand New Plan: Raise Taxes On Rich, No Spending Cuts

Say hello to the new Democratic plan, same as the old the Democratic plan

So the new Democratic plan, as laid out by resident scumbag Chuck Schumer is to raise taxes on the rich and cut nothing.  I’m glad the Democrats aren’t a broken record that have only one policy, but rather embrace a myriad of different ways to improve the economy and never stick to a plan after it has already failed the last 100 times it was tried. 

 

Senator Schumer, who has never met a tax hike or Constitutional violation he didn’t like  is suggesting this new tax hike on millionaires to offset the cost of continuing the tax break on the payroll tax we have all enjoyed for the last year.

And you know what, I like the payroll tax break.  Better that I get to keep my money than it goes to the Social Security system where it is guaranteed that I will never see it again.  I’m kind of like that; I prefer my money to remain in my wallet instead of the wallets of highway robbers.  I guess I’m just greedy.

But how about this we don’t need to raise taxes on anyone.  Do you know why?  Well first because Schumer’s tax those who make more than a million a year plan is just laughable.  You could tax everyone in the country who makes more than a million a year and still not have enough to shore up social security.

Let’s take a look. [2006 figures]  U.S. Census figures don’t list go above $250,000 a year but let’s use that.  After all $250,000 a year is rich and those bastards deserve to have everything taken from them anyway.  So there are 2.2 million households with an income of $250K or higher (There are 116 million households so this group is about the top 2% of the number of households).   The whole group has an average income of $448,687 (which if you take the time to think about it means most of them are below the million dollar mark, but they’re still evil rich bastards).  So the total income for this group is 987.1 Billion dollars.  So if Chuck put an additional 10% on their income that would yield 98.7 Billion next year.

 

But that won’t solve much.  You see Social Security was already taking in 29 Billion less than it was spending in March of 2010then in December of 2010 Obama signed the 2% Payroll tax holiday for a year, which is what Schumer wants to save.  That saved Americans about $100 Billion that wasn’t sent to the thieves at Social Security.  Oh wait, we were already spending more than we were taking in, then we cut income by a $100,000,000,000.00.  Hmmm and if Chuck got a 10% hike on everyone at $250,000 or more that would supply 99 Billion.

But Chuck only wants to tax those making over a million.  Which, since they’re a small portion of that top 2% means the tax rate will have to be even higher to make up the difference.  So we’re at what, a 20% increase?  30%?  And you’re still not making up for the initial $29 Billion shortfall that we started with before the payroll tax cut.

And let us not forget the baby boomers are starting to retire.  A massive generation of losers who expect to be taken care of.  Yeah I’m sure that won’t jack up costs.

And I’m sure a 30% tax increase on income won’t possibly slow down the economy at all.  No, not at all.

And it’s even more ridiculous as most people who make over a million a year make it through investments which is an entirely different type of income than the type Schumer is talking about.  So don’t worry Warren Buffet, your Democratic pals aren’t coming after a single cent of your income.

How about this, Chuck.  Instead of your plan which won’t work and is only there to stir up the class warfare, how about a plan that works.

If you’re on Social Security right now, you’re taking a 10% cut in benefits.  If you’re going on it in the next 3 years you’re taking a 15% cut.  If you’re not retiring in the next three years, guess what you’re really not retiring in the next three years because we’re raising the retirement age from 67 to 71…and look forward a 20% cut in benefits.  And if you’re under 50 right now you’re retirement age is 75 and a 25% cut in benefits.  This will get costs in line.

And then we should lower benefits for everyone 45 or younger even further but offer these people a privatized system that is self sustaining and not a ponzi-scheme like entitlement program.
But that would actually work.  And Chuck Schumer isn’t interested in things that work…he’s interested in things that get him and his ilk elected so they can be exempt from all payroll taxes and all insider trading laws.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Social Security, Taxes, Tea Party, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Laws for the GOP to Pass: Last weekly blog in the series, Stop subsidizing bad behavior

Basic psychology. If you reward a behavior you will get more of it. If you repeatedly reward a behavior you will get more of it. So the worst thing anyone could do is reward bad behavior…and even the dumbest person in the world, even before B.F. Skinner, knows this. So how stupid do you have to be to be a government that does just that?

So while I have covered bits and pieces of this basic concept, the entire U.S. government needs to adopt a policy that we need to stop subsidizing and encouraging bad behavior.

Let’s take a look at some ways we do this. Do you run a crappy business? Is it about to go belly up because you make the worst product in your field, have the dumbest advertising, the most inane management and you pay unskilled workers more than most college graduates make. Well don’t worry because someone in the government will say you’re “Too big to fail.” So you get to keep doing everything that made you a business that is eventually going to fail. Why do we do this? Do we think that businesses succeeding or failing is just something random and not directly a result of the choices made by that business? Businesses succeed because of good practices, not because of bad luck. Bailing out the losers only rewards the losers and prevents the people who have good practices from expanding to fill the gap.

Or how about this one?  Have you done something absolutely brain dead like not save for retirement? Don’t worry we’re going to pay you 140% of what you paid into to our Ponzi scheme. Why should you save, you’ll have life subsidized no matter how poorly you planned or saved. And for the kicker, not only did you raise terrible children who won’t let you come and move in with them (thus also hurting all of society by the fact that you didn’t teach them even a small piece of charity) but you’re now going to screw not just your children again, but also your grandchildren by having to pay for the fact that we like to reward your inability to plan for something that there is actually no question will occur.

Then of course there is Medicaid and Medicare. Yes we all get sick, we all get old and our bodies all break down and die. But let’s be honest here most of the money is spent on entirely preventable conditions (heart disease, lung diseases, Type II diabetes…hell most cancer have a certain amount of behavior and bad habits as their cause). The more idiotic your decisions the more rewarded you get with more and more money spent on your numerous medical problems.

And then of course we have welfare. Did you not study in school and are thus completely un-hirable? Well let’s give you money. Do you not go to find a job no matter how far below your ideal job it might be? Don’t worry we’ll give you money. We won’t require that you get an education, do a certain amount of community service, or even go look for a job…no we’re just going to give you money.

Now with all of these we need to stop rewarding bad behavior. Some of these programs we just need to kill (Bailouts, social security, Medicaid and Medicare) and others like welfare we need to require certain things like requiring good behavior (like making all payments dependant on education and community service).

With every single expenditure made by the government we need to start asking are we encouraging good behavior or subsidizing bad ones? And if the answer is we are wasting money encouraging bad behavior we need to not pay for it. If we just followed this basic principle then it would save us trillions of dollars in the long run.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Charity, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, politics, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Laws for the GOP to pass…rework the entire bureaucracy…and by rework I mean fire just about everyone

We’re winding down weekly law blogs.  Next week will be the last one that will be published every week…not that I won’t have any more law blogs but they just won’t be on a weekly basis.

So what am I going to suggest this week?  Well I have suggested a few departments be disbanded.  Now if you noticed the theme, I would argue that most of the departments should just be disbanded, with their few useful functions either handed to the remaining departments, given to the states, or simply privatized.  Now we’ve covered Transportation , Education , HUD , the Post Office , the TSA and the USDA.

But that still doesn’t cover a lot.  Why doesn’t it cover a lot?  Well take a look at the current U.S. Executive Branch.

This would be the definition of madness.  And technically one man controls all of that.  I don’t care it if it’s Obama, Bush or George Washington risen from the grave.  No one can possibly lead all of that or should be trusted with all of that.

So I suggest we just get rid of most of it.  The federal government should be there to protect our Constitutional rights, police crimes that cross borders, defend the national borders, resolves conflicts between states and a few other things that are too big for individual states to do.  Most of what’s on that list does not fall into the area of things states can’t be trusted to do.

In fact Congress should make it its job to make this look more like this:

You’ll notice that only the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, Justice and Homeland are left.  And quite frankly if I had my way Justice would be all the legal ins and out and Homeland would have the FBI and all other federal police forces (ATF, DEA, ICE, etc) all rolled into that large FBI–it frightens me that numerous organizations are out there with the same purpose to catch criminals which results in numerous overlaps, wasteful spending and of course turf wars.  Also can we please change the name of Homeland Security?  It’s the dumbest name ever.  It’s sounds like Fatherland or Motherland (remind me which two countries referred to their nations that way).  How about Department of Internal Security.  That way you have a federal police force (Internal Security) and a federal prosecutor (Justice) without the two being the same department (you know how every city, county and state does it).

But as to the Departments I will be getting rid of, I will be brief (If you would like a full justification of why just about everything in that Department needs to be destroyed, I will be more than happy to write a whole blog for each request).

Scrap the Department of Transportation: Last week I had a blog saying infrastructure needs to be handed over to the state, that’s most of the Department there…the only thing that’s left and of value is the FFA and that can be regulated by Internal Security but mainly it just needs to be privatized

The Department of Energy serves no useful federal function other the fact that they hold all the nuclear stuff.  Defense and Internal Security can handle those.

The Department of Commerce is entirely unconstitutional right now, but the commerce clause needs to be clarified so even a liberal can understand it only applies to commerce that crosses state borders.  Its only useful parts are the Census Bureau and Patent Office (which can just be operated as independent federal offices), and NOAA which can be privatized.

Health and Human Services is not the concern of the federal government (FDA can be privatized, CDC over to the Department of Internal Defense)

Department of Interior…utterly useless…especially Indian Affairs.  The states can clearly handle all of this.

Department of sucking up to unions…I mean the Dept of Labor…does nothing relevant, kill it.

The Department of Veterans Affairs can be rolled back into Defense.  I think people in the Pentagon will care a hell of a lot more for veterans than bureaucrats in an office.

And then of course there are a lot of independent agencies I’m getting rid of.  I’m not going into all of them but here are a few highlights.

  • Kill the Peace Corp…if we didn’t send them all to Iraq and Afghanistan to help rebuild those places why the hell do we have them?  They serve no legitimate function.
  • Kill NASA and let the private sector take over.  We’ll be on Mars before the next generation if we let the private sector take over…we’ll never get anywhere if we let government continue to handle this.
  • Kill the African Development Foundation…really, does it look like we know what we’re doing with this?
  • Kill the Foundation on the arts and humanities…again this is a private concern.
  • Privatize Amtrak
  • Kill the National Science Foundation…again this should be a private concern.  Not to mention that this thing has become a liberal propaganda wing.
  • Kill OSHA…Two or three times just to be safe, and burn the buildings…I think all the employees should be put in jail (solitary for life) just to be safe, and probably have the bodies burned after they die to make sure they don’t come back.  No government office is as harmful to business, worker happiness and safety as this office which had to have been imagined in the 10th level of hell.
  • Office of Government Ethics…Huh?  Try not laugh when reading that.
  • Selective Service System…yeah we have a volunteer system now…and if it wasn’t too hard to set up in WWII it won’t be too difficult to set up again if we need it.
  • Small Business Administration…you know how best to help Small Businesses?  Stop having an administration that constantly gets in their way. Kill this thing too.
  • Social Security…I think I’ve been clear that we need to phase that out completely.
  • Why is the TVA still around?
  • US Commission on Civil Rights…if there is a real civil rights violation then that’s the domain of the Justice Department so you don’t need this redundant excuse.
  • Office of Drug Control Policy…uh-huh, and that’s worked so well…

Yes there are legitimate functions of the federal government.  But right now it is overstepping those functions, usually at the price of those functions.  The states and the private sector can handle a lot of these things more efficiently, cheaper, with less corruption, less paperwork and at a greater benefit to the public.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism, Welfare