Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Competing Ideological Continuums
Currently, I have found that there are two different political ideology continuums that people use. Unfortunately, one of them casts the right in a negative light while the true political continuum reveals the truth.
For many, and indeed most, the perception is that the political continuum has communism on the left flank and fascism on the right flank. Intense nationalism, to those who ascribe to this continuum, is a phenomenon of the right. Hitler, for example, was a right winger in this context. On the left of this continuum, one would find people who believe that the state should exert control over the economy and society. Leaders like Mao and Stalin are considered leftists.
There is an obvious problem with the political continuum being defined that way. Hitler sought to control society and to use the state to manipulate the economy. The only difference is that people of the left do not try to manipulate the economy, they try to run it. Hitler’s “right wing” fascism and Stalin’s “left wing” communism are both examples of authoritarianism. Mussolini for example, widely considered a fascist, was first and foremost a socialist. The ideas are not competing, they are complimentary because they are both about control.
A true political continuum realizes that fascism and communism are, in fact, very similar in that they attempt to exert control over society. Authoritarian forms of government are on the left; both fascism and communism are left wing. On the right is anarchy, the antithesis of absolute authoritarianism.
Certainly, the Republican Party today is likely a bit to the right of the Democrat Party but the fact remains that both are sliding to the left. Unfortunately, conservatism, a true right wing ideology that stands for freedom and liberty, is being alienated by both political parties. I feel that the American people are further to the right than either party is currently; we want liberty and less government. A majority of Americans are conservative and are awaiting Republicans or Democrats, most likely Republicans, to represent their interests again. It is my belief that the rise in registered Independents or unaffiliated voters is the result of both political parties shifting further left than the average American.
For many, and indeed most, the perception is that the political continuum has communism on the left flank and fascism on the right flank. Intense nationalism, to those who ascribe to this continuum, is a phenomenon of the right. Hitler, for example, was a right winger in this context. On the left of this continuum, one would find people who believe that the state should exert control over the economy and society. Leaders like Mao and Stalin are considered leftists.
There is an obvious problem with the political continuum being defined that way. Hitler sought to control society and to use the state to manipulate the economy. The only difference is that people of the left do not try to manipulate the economy, they try to run it. Hitler’s “right wing” fascism and Stalin’s “left wing” communism are both examples of authoritarianism. Mussolini for example, widely considered a fascist, was first and foremost a socialist. The ideas are not competing, they are complimentary because they are both about control.
A true political continuum realizes that fascism and communism are, in fact, very similar in that they attempt to exert control over society. Authoritarian forms of government are on the left; both fascism and communism are left wing. On the right is anarchy, the antithesis of absolute authoritarianism.
Certainly, the Republican Party today is likely a bit to the right of the Democrat Party but the fact remains that both are sliding to the left. Unfortunately, conservatism, a true right wing ideology that stands for freedom and liberty, is being alienated by both political parties. I feel that the American people are further to the right than either party is currently; we want liberty and less government. A majority of Americans are conservative and are awaiting Republicans or Democrats, most likely Republicans, to represent their interests again. It is my belief that the rise in registered Independents or unaffiliated voters is the result of both political parties shifting further left than the average American.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Europe Trending Right
Per several news outlets, the right (a relative term in European Politics) has scored impressive victories in elections across Europe for the European Parliament. I continue to be confused which side of the Atlantic I am on.
The United States has not only turned, it has veered to the left under the guidance of President Obama. Chrysler and General Motors, two manufacturing giants, have effectively been nationalized. A Keynesian spending economic stimulus plan of unprecedented proportions, not tax cuts, has been tabbed as the solution to our economic woes. To top it off, the nation’s largest financial firms are taking funds, as well as orders, from the government.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, right-leaning parties appear to be on the rise in European Union elections as well as in the polls for national elections in Europe. The leaders of Germany and France, Merkel and Sarkozy respectively, have requested that the American President restrain spending. Chancellor Merkel has criticized the Federal Reserve for its extremely loose monetary policy and resisted President Obama’s calls for more Keynesian stimulus spending in Germany.
The United States is busily turning leftward while it appears that Europeans are asking for a rightward shift and warning President Obama to restrain himself. Conservatives in America hopefully understand that what the people want is a government run by sustainable conservative principles. Even Europe is asking for a turn to the right.
The United States has not only turned, it has veered to the left under the guidance of President Obama. Chrysler and General Motors, two manufacturing giants, have effectively been nationalized. A Keynesian spending economic stimulus plan of unprecedented proportions, not tax cuts, has been tabbed as the solution to our economic woes. To top it off, the nation’s largest financial firms are taking funds, as well as orders, from the government.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, right-leaning parties appear to be on the rise in European Union elections as well as in the polls for national elections in Europe. The leaders of Germany and France, Merkel and Sarkozy respectively, have requested that the American President restrain spending. Chancellor Merkel has criticized the Federal Reserve for its extremely loose monetary policy and resisted President Obama’s calls for more Keynesian stimulus spending in Germany.
The United States is busily turning leftward while it appears that Europeans are asking for a rightward shift and warning President Obama to restrain himself. Conservatives in America hopefully understand that what the people want is a government run by sustainable conservative principles. Even Europe is asking for a turn to the right.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
American Tyranny
Everyone knows that President Obama hopes that the Supreme Court will have empathy. We all know that empathy, in regards to judicial decisions, is contrary to the rule of law. Using the federal bench as a means for the government to empathize with the American people will further erode the rule of law, one of the foundational pillars of our great country.
Empathy is favoritism when used to decide disputes. The greatness of our society, the reason that America is a beacon of hope throughout the world, is due in no small part to the fact that justice is administered equally, without respect to race, gender or ethnicity, and is based on reason. Using empathy, the Supreme Court will be picking winners and losers in society based not on logical reasoning and the law but on sentiments and feelings. The rule of law, and not the rule of empathy, is what ensures that we are free from the whims of our political leaders (i.e. tyranny).
In addition to tossing aside the rule of law, President Obama has tossed aside the free market by tampering with General Motors and Chrysler. The actions of the Obama Administration are tyrannical because they have subjected the American society to empathy from the government. A misguided attempt by the Obama Administration, a process which began under the Bush Administration, to empathize with the workers of GM and Chrysler has distorted the market and subjected our economic system to the whims of politicians. These actions are tyranny, plain and simple, albeit tyranny with a gentle touch.
In both the judiciary and the economy, President Obama has taken actions that are revealing a pattern of behavior that should clue us in on his core beliefs. If he truly believes that it is the role of the government to empathize with the American people, and his actions suggest that he does, his core principles are contrary to those of our founders and those principles outlined in our sacred founding documents.
Empathy is favoritism when used to decide disputes. The greatness of our society, the reason that America is a beacon of hope throughout the world, is due in no small part to the fact that justice is administered equally, without respect to race, gender or ethnicity, and is based on reason. Using empathy, the Supreme Court will be picking winners and losers in society based not on logical reasoning and the law but on sentiments and feelings. The rule of law, and not the rule of empathy, is what ensures that we are free from the whims of our political leaders (i.e. tyranny).
In addition to tossing aside the rule of law, President Obama has tossed aside the free market by tampering with General Motors and Chrysler. The actions of the Obama Administration are tyrannical because they have subjected the American society to empathy from the government. A misguided attempt by the Obama Administration, a process which began under the Bush Administration, to empathize with the workers of GM and Chrysler has distorted the market and subjected our economic system to the whims of politicians. These actions are tyranny, plain and simple, albeit tyranny with a gentle touch.
In both the judiciary and the economy, President Obama has taken actions that are revealing a pattern of behavior that should clue us in on his core beliefs. If he truly believes that it is the role of the government to empathize with the American people, and his actions suggest that he does, his core principles are contrary to those of our founders and those principles outlined in our sacred founding documents.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
United States Government Refuses to Accept Free Market Solution
I just heard a spokesman from General Motors on a radio show say that he was grateful for the government stepping in to save the company. He outlined why he felt that way and his explanation for why he is appreciative of government intervention is precisely why I believe that the company should have failed.
According to the spokesman, General Motors’ bankruptcy process allows the company to shed its bad assets and sell the viable assets to a new company. The new company will be the new General Motors that will consist of Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. During the process, Hummer, Saab and Saturn will be put up for sale while Pontiac will be shut down completely. Saturn has already been purchased.
It was necessary for the government to be involved, according to the spokesman, because if General Motors had filed for bankruptcy without assurance that the government would purchase at least a major part of the viable assets, then there would very likely have been no one to buy the viable assets. At the very least, there would have been no single venture capitalist, hedge fund or other capital entity that would have taken a chance on the new General Motors. The government was the only option.
What the spokesman explained was the process of the free market shedding weaknesses. If General Motors files for bankruptcy and there is no one willing to purchase its assets, then the market has dictated that the company is a failure and that none of the assets were actually viable. The market should have been left to do its work instead of the government stepping in and keeping a failed company on life support. Capital invested in General Motors should have been liquidated so that it could be reinvested into stronger companies. That is how capitalism perpetuates.
Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that some financier would not have taken a chance on Chevrolet or Cadillac, and likely even GMC or Buick, because they are distinctly American brands that likely could be restructured into lean and efficient automobile brands. Bondholders, shareholders, the unions and whoever else that owned the “old” General Motors certainly would have negotiated and accepted a reasonable offer from someone willing to step in.
But, if no one was willing to purchase any of the apparently viable assets, then the company should have been left to die. Instead, the government defied the free market and did not allow its mechanisms to take their toll. Failure is inherent in capitalism, but in no other system can success run so rampant.
The governments’ actions show that our political leaders do not have the faith in the free market that is necessary. If they did, General Motors would be on its own to push through the bankruptcy process. Not only does government intervention show a lack of faith the free market but it shows that the government has too much faith in itself, believing that intervention was best for the country. A faith in government that runs that deep is contrary to the American Way. What has happened to our country?
According to the spokesman, General Motors’ bankruptcy process allows the company to shed its bad assets and sell the viable assets to a new company. The new company will be the new General Motors that will consist of Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. During the process, Hummer, Saab and Saturn will be put up for sale while Pontiac will be shut down completely. Saturn has already been purchased.
It was necessary for the government to be involved, according to the spokesman, because if General Motors had filed for bankruptcy without assurance that the government would purchase at least a major part of the viable assets, then there would very likely have been no one to buy the viable assets. At the very least, there would have been no single venture capitalist, hedge fund or other capital entity that would have taken a chance on the new General Motors. The government was the only option.
What the spokesman explained was the process of the free market shedding weaknesses. If General Motors files for bankruptcy and there is no one willing to purchase its assets, then the market has dictated that the company is a failure and that none of the assets were actually viable. The market should have been left to do its work instead of the government stepping in and keeping a failed company on life support. Capital invested in General Motors should have been liquidated so that it could be reinvested into stronger companies. That is how capitalism perpetuates.
Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that some financier would not have taken a chance on Chevrolet or Cadillac, and likely even GMC or Buick, because they are distinctly American brands that likely could be restructured into lean and efficient automobile brands. Bondholders, shareholders, the unions and whoever else that owned the “old” General Motors certainly would have negotiated and accepted a reasonable offer from someone willing to step in.
But, if no one was willing to purchase any of the apparently viable assets, then the company should have been left to die. Instead, the government defied the free market and did not allow its mechanisms to take their toll. Failure is inherent in capitalism, but in no other system can success run so rampant.
The governments’ actions show that our political leaders do not have the faith in the free market that is necessary. If they did, General Motors would be on its own to push through the bankruptcy process. Not only does government intervention show a lack of faith the free market but it shows that the government has too much faith in itself, believing that intervention was best for the country. A faith in government that runs that deep is contrary to the American Way. What has happened to our country?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Breaking the Oath
According to uspolitics.about.com, the following is the oath of office that Supreme Court Justices must take:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The oath is pretty simple, justice is meant to be administered without respect to persons or socioeconomic status. Judgment is to be rendered in an impartial manner with respect only to the laws and Constitution of the United States. In other words, justice is blind to everything except the law. That is the definition of a society that is governed by the rule of law. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a fair legal system.
When President Obama uses words like “empathy” and “compassion” to describe his ideal pick for Supreme Court Justice, he is paying no mind to the rule of law. Nowhere in the oath of office can I find where a justice is to use compassion or empathy to decide a case. A justice is supposed to make a reasoned and logical decision based on the law, not the color of a person’s skin, not their ethnicity and not their social or financial situation.
Sonia Sotomayor, according to President Obama, will be compassionate and empathetic. The President would not have chosen Judge Sotomayor if he did not believe that she would live up to his standards. What I do not understand is how Justice Sotomayor, should she be confirmed, or any justice for that matter, will be able to keep their oath and be compassionate and/or empathetic. The oath leaves no room for compromise; decisions are to be made without regard to compassion or empathy.
Essentially, President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor and will be displeased with her performance if she adheres solely to her oath of office. He will be satisfied only if she breaks her oath and considers the human aspect of a case with empathy and compassion before making a decision. President Obama expects all of his Supreme Court nominees to break their oath of office and disregard the rule of law, perhaps not in all cases, but in some. I hope that someone will be able to explain to me how the same President who refuses to compromise on morality willingly accepts that justices on the highest court in the land ought to compromise the rule of law.
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The oath is pretty simple, justice is meant to be administered without respect to persons or socioeconomic status. Judgment is to be rendered in an impartial manner with respect only to the laws and Constitution of the United States. In other words, justice is blind to everything except the law. That is the definition of a society that is governed by the rule of law. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a fair legal system.
When President Obama uses words like “empathy” and “compassion” to describe his ideal pick for Supreme Court Justice, he is paying no mind to the rule of law. Nowhere in the oath of office can I find where a justice is to use compassion or empathy to decide a case. A justice is supposed to make a reasoned and logical decision based on the law, not the color of a person’s skin, not their ethnicity and not their social or financial situation.
Sonia Sotomayor, according to President Obama, will be compassionate and empathetic. The President would not have chosen Judge Sotomayor if he did not believe that she would live up to his standards. What I do not understand is how Justice Sotomayor, should she be confirmed, or any justice for that matter, will be able to keep their oath and be compassionate and/or empathetic. The oath leaves no room for compromise; decisions are to be made without regard to compassion or empathy.
Essentially, President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor and will be displeased with her performance if she adheres solely to her oath of office. He will be satisfied only if she breaks her oath and considers the human aspect of a case with empathy and compassion before making a decision. President Obama expects all of his Supreme Court nominees to break their oath of office and disregard the rule of law, perhaps not in all cases, but in some. I hope that someone will be able to explain to me how the same President who refuses to compromise on morality willingly accepts that justices on the highest court in the land ought to compromise the rule of law.
Government Healthcare: Means to an End
One of the items that has been on the liberal agenda for decades is healthcare. For liberals, healthcare is a great issue because it plays to their strengths, and in the long run it will allow them to gain even more control over individuals lives', all the while claiming to do so in our best interest. In the end, liberals think they are better at running our lives than we are - they want to control our lives to save us from ourselves. Conservatives cannot allow the government to usurp more power over healthcare because the consequences will be devastating to our individual liberties.
Healthcare is a winner for liberals because they love to use identity politics (i.e. sob stories) and always claim to be looking out for the common man. Telling stories that glorify the universal coverage acheived in Canada and Britain and contrasting those stories with profiles of Americans who have suffered because of lack of health coverage is a favorite liberal pastime. Ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage will protect the common man, nevermind that the coverage will provide for slow, rationed and poor medical care.
Government healthcare is the ultimate goal for liberals because once they acheive their goal, they will have the license to control any aspect of our lives. Sin taxes can be applied to unhealthy foods like soda, bacon and cheese, all for the purpose of discouraging people from eating those foods. There are already sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol products to help protect us from ourselves. Not long after, the government will attempt to restrict us from taking part in activities that may subject us to injuries. For example, some government healthcare bureaucrat may call and tell you that your son cannot play football because he is too small and is thus more likely to be injured.
That sounds radical, of course, but the government will tell us that these measures are necessary to cut healthcare costs. If only people would eat healthy food and not participate in rough activities, fewer people would require expensive medical treatment and costs would go down.
Bottom line, government healthcare will provide liberals with the dream excuse to exert further control on our lives - to save us money! If only we allow the government to save us from injuring ourselves, we could pay fewer taxes. We cannot let the liberals use our compassion for others against us, because that is what they will attempt to do. We cannot give in to the sob stories that liberals present because the end result will be lower quality care for everyone and and increased government presence in our lives. Healthcare is a dream issue for the liberals, we have to ensure that their dream issue becomes a political nightmare.
Healthcare is a winner for liberals because they love to use identity politics (i.e. sob stories) and always claim to be looking out for the common man. Telling stories that glorify the universal coverage acheived in Canada and Britain and contrasting those stories with profiles of Americans who have suffered because of lack of health coverage is a favorite liberal pastime. Ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage will protect the common man, nevermind that the coverage will provide for slow, rationed and poor medical care.
Government healthcare is the ultimate goal for liberals because once they acheive their goal, they will have the license to control any aspect of our lives. Sin taxes can be applied to unhealthy foods like soda, bacon and cheese, all for the purpose of discouraging people from eating those foods. There are already sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol products to help protect us from ourselves. Not long after, the government will attempt to restrict us from taking part in activities that may subject us to injuries. For example, some government healthcare bureaucrat may call and tell you that your son cannot play football because he is too small and is thus more likely to be injured.
That sounds radical, of course, but the government will tell us that these measures are necessary to cut healthcare costs. If only people would eat healthy food and not participate in rough activities, fewer people would require expensive medical treatment and costs would go down.
Bottom line, government healthcare will provide liberals with the dream excuse to exert further control on our lives - to save us money! If only we allow the government to save us from injuring ourselves, we could pay fewer taxes. We cannot let the liberals use our compassion for others against us, because that is what they will attempt to do. We cannot give in to the sob stories that liberals present because the end result will be lower quality care for everyone and and increased government presence in our lives. Healthcare is a dream issue for the liberals, we have to ensure that their dream issue becomes a political nightmare.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Obama Freedom Policy?
President Obama recently stated that he did not think that the United States ought to impose its values on other countries, but rather we should lead by example. Democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are universal principles that all nations are able to embrace, he claims.
I wish that all nations did embrace those principles. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While I do not think that America should impose its values, because impose is a strong word with negative connotations, I think that freedom, democracy and the rule of law ought to be our export of top priority. The means with which we export these invaluable ideals is open to debate and subject to disagreement.
Leading by example is one means to export liberty but will not work in every case. Assuring that Europe would continue to be free after WWII was not accomplished by our great nation simply leading by example. We led, or in the very least assisted, the Allied military effort on the battlefield to protect freedom abroad. The United States stood up to the expansion of communism in the Korean War and held firm in Berlin to protect freedom in Germany. Simply leading by example at home in the United States would not have stopped the German or Italian Fascists nor would it have stopped the spread of Soviet Communism.
I am of the belief that freedom is a natural desire of man and that the United States ought to assist societies in their quest for freedom. Leading by example is certainly the first step but when push comes to shove, America should be willing to fight alongside other nations trying to rise above tyranny as we have in the past. Were it not for the help of the French, after all, our Continental Army likely would have failed to defeat our tyrannical British overlords.
President Obama, with that statement, may have hinted at his underlying philosophy on foreign relations that breaks with the American policy of the past. There is an isolationist tone in his words that may not serve America, or the cause of freedom in the world, very well in an increasingly global world where freedom faces numerous obstacles.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9ea937445ae71bcf5056c436c0955d4d.1731&show_article=1
I wish that all nations did embrace those principles. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While I do not think that America should impose its values, because impose is a strong word with negative connotations, I think that freedom, democracy and the rule of law ought to be our export of top priority. The means with which we export these invaluable ideals is open to debate and subject to disagreement.
Leading by example is one means to export liberty but will not work in every case. Assuring that Europe would continue to be free after WWII was not accomplished by our great nation simply leading by example. We led, or in the very least assisted, the Allied military effort on the battlefield to protect freedom abroad. The United States stood up to the expansion of communism in the Korean War and held firm in Berlin to protect freedom in Germany. Simply leading by example at home in the United States would not have stopped the German or Italian Fascists nor would it have stopped the spread of Soviet Communism.
I am of the belief that freedom is a natural desire of man and that the United States ought to assist societies in their quest for freedom. Leading by example is certainly the first step but when push comes to shove, America should be willing to fight alongside other nations trying to rise above tyranny as we have in the past. Were it not for the help of the French, after all, our Continental Army likely would have failed to defeat our tyrannical British overlords.
President Obama, with that statement, may have hinted at his underlying philosophy on foreign relations that breaks with the American policy of the past. There is an isolationist tone in his words that may not serve America, or the cause of freedom in the world, very well in an increasingly global world where freedom faces numerous obstacles.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9ea937445ae71bcf5056c436c0955d4d.1731&show_article=1
Interesting Contrast
Per the Washington Post today, President Obama says "I don't want to put an artificial timetable on the process" referring to his offer to Iran to engage in the diplomatic process concerning their aspirations to attain nuclear weapons.
It is interesting that President Obama is not interested in putting an "artificial timetable" on the "process" but pushed hard for a definate withdrawal date from the War in Iraq. Why would the United States not want to monitor the process in Iraq and act accordingly instead of setting a hard deadline? Why would President Obama set a specific date on the closing of Gitmo without having a plan or monitoring the "process?"
The contrast may reveal something that the more cynical of us knew long ago, that the hard and fast deadlines President Obama set for Iraq and Gitmo were simply political moves to satisfy his leftist base. The deadlines were not smart decisions strategically but simply political moves that were not necessarily feasible. On Iran, President Obama believes that the smart move stratigically is to wait on the "process," and he can follow through on that because he does not have his leftist base howling to set a date.
It seems to me that this contrast is proof that setting a timetable on Iraq withdrawal and the closing of Gitmo was an example of putting politics ahead of what is best for America; putting the interests of Obama ahead of the interests of the nation. Call me crazy, but I think that the most important thing that Obama intends to "preserve, protect and defend" is his political stature.
It is interesting that President Obama is not interested in putting an "artificial timetable" on the "process" but pushed hard for a definate withdrawal date from the War in Iraq. Why would the United States not want to monitor the process in Iraq and act accordingly instead of setting a hard deadline? Why would President Obama set a specific date on the closing of Gitmo without having a plan or monitoring the "process?"
The contrast may reveal something that the more cynical of us knew long ago, that the hard and fast deadlines President Obama set for Iraq and Gitmo were simply political moves to satisfy his leftist base. The deadlines were not smart decisions strategically but simply political moves that were not necessarily feasible. On Iran, President Obama believes that the smart move stratigically is to wait on the "process," and he can follow through on that because he does not have his leftist base howling to set a date.
It seems to me that this contrast is proof that setting a timetable on Iraq withdrawal and the closing of Gitmo was an example of putting politics ahead of what is best for America; putting the interests of Obama ahead of the interests of the nation. Call me crazy, but I think that the most important thing that Obama intends to "preserve, protect and defend" is his political stature.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Ford, America's Auto Company
Ford Motor Company remains the only automobile manufacturing conglomerate that has not received assistance from the national government in any way, and Ford deserves praise for turning down government assistance. It is laudable that the company, though in financial distress itself, decided to take the traditionally American approach and try to turn the company around by restructuring in the free market and responding to the American public in an attempt to become viable. Ford’s competitors, General Motors and Chrysler, are left to restructure at the direction of political bureaucrats and elected officials.
I believe that Ford made a financial decision when it decided to not accept government money, as well as a political one. A smart decision was made nonetheless. It is my belief that the forward looking Ford Motor Company placed its bet on the sentiments of the American people. The company must have known that a bailout would not sit well with the public. Making excuses and relying on government, instead of relying on ones self, is simply counter to the American Way.
As a result of the decision to not accept government money, Ford is not in the news receiving negative press like General Motors and Chrysler. In turn, Ford sounds like a relatively strong and viable American auto company and the auto company that stuck it out without giving in. Americans who still want to buy American automobiles are likely to turn to Ford, instead of General Motors and Chrysler, when by buy because Ford is restructuring the American way, by listening to the people and manufacturing the products that people want. In other words, Ford will allow market forces to dictate its product line, not the same bureaucrat that will likely bark out orders to General Motors and Chrysler.
True, Ford was at the table in December when the “Big Three” went to Washington begging for handouts, but their ultimate decision to remain independent and not accept taxpayer dollars was the right one. In the end, if Ford responds to market pressure and produces the types of cars and trucks Americans want; can restructure to the extent that it becomes more cost effective (help out, unions); and does not have to face unfair (subsidized) competition from its government run competitors, the company could and should become an American success story, again.
If I ever purchase an American car (today I am the proud driver of a Toyota), I will look first at Ford. It is the last truly American automaker.
I believe that Ford made a financial decision when it decided to not accept government money, as well as a political one. A smart decision was made nonetheless. It is my belief that the forward looking Ford Motor Company placed its bet on the sentiments of the American people. The company must have known that a bailout would not sit well with the public. Making excuses and relying on government, instead of relying on ones self, is simply counter to the American Way.
As a result of the decision to not accept government money, Ford is not in the news receiving negative press like General Motors and Chrysler. In turn, Ford sounds like a relatively strong and viable American auto company and the auto company that stuck it out without giving in. Americans who still want to buy American automobiles are likely to turn to Ford, instead of General Motors and Chrysler, when by buy because Ford is restructuring the American way, by listening to the people and manufacturing the products that people want. In other words, Ford will allow market forces to dictate its product line, not the same bureaucrat that will likely bark out orders to General Motors and Chrysler.
True, Ford was at the table in December when the “Big Three” went to Washington begging for handouts, but their ultimate decision to remain independent and not accept taxpayer dollars was the right one. In the end, if Ford responds to market pressure and produces the types of cars and trucks Americans want; can restructure to the extent that it becomes more cost effective (help out, unions); and does not have to face unfair (subsidized) competition from its government run competitors, the company could and should become an American success story, again.
If I ever purchase an American car (today I am the proud driver of a Toyota), I will look first at Ford. It is the last truly American automaker.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Marx and Hitler were both Totalitarians
We the People may soon be proud owners of General Motors, just like we are proud owners of Chrysler, only we are likely going to hold a larger stake in GM. The United States government continues its assault on the rule of law, binding contracts and capitalism by politically restructuring two of the Big Three automakers. Ford did not accept government loans at the end of the Bush Administration and remains free of the grotesque government meddling that Chrysler and GM are experiencing under the disguise of restructuring.
Chrysler has already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and is in bankruptcy court. Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow a firm protection from debtors while it restructures, the ultimate result being that the company emerges stronger in the end once debt obligations have been restructured and settled upon in court. Chryslers’ bankruptcy is going smoothly due in large part to the fact that it was already restructured pre-bankruptcy filing by the Obama Administration. For me, the term political restructuring is applicable.
Prior to the actual filing of Chapter 11, the Obama Administration began to discuss options with creditors. In the end, unions and the government will end up with more lucrative payouts than secured creditors whose contracts required that they be first in line to receive money should Chrysler file for bankruptcy. Presently, GM is undergoing a political restructuring as well, which will lead to Chapter 11 if certain conditions set by the government are not met. It appears that the United States government will hold a majority stake, as much as 70%, in GM once the process is complete.
The pre-bankruptcy political restructuring is a problem in and of itself. Had Chrysler and GM simply been left to file for bankruptcy instead of being given the loans that they begged for from the government, political restructuring would not have happened. Instead, government meddling in the private sector led to the governments role in the process and simply delayed the inevitable, a bankruptcy filing. The Bush Administration is at fault for the initial government loans given to GM and Chrysler, the Obama Administration took over from there.
More generally, the political restructuring allows the government to decide who the winners and losers are, regardless of what contracts say. Secured creditors, who were supposed to be first in line, have been shuffled back behind the government and unions. Contracts, in other words, were thrown out the window and the rule of law was discarded for political purposes. Call me cynical but it seems to me that the unions got a sweetheart deal from the Obama Administration because the unions reliably support Democrats with votes and campaign cash.
Should GM and Chrysler emerge from bankruptcy, they will both be controlled by unions and the politicians in Washington. Karl Marx once mentioned something about the power of the worker or workers taking over in some sort of revolution or something like that. However, Marxism is not the biggest concern. Fascism is the number one concern.
Fascism is ideologically neutral; it is simply the desire for power. The Obama Administration has taken steps that are nothing more than a government power grab. When 2/3 of the largest manufacturing industry in a nation is run by Washington, the power lies with politicians, not with the people or with the actual company. Fascism for the sake of solving an economic crisis is no less restricting of freedom and liberty, and is no less destructive to capitalism and the free markets than fascism for the sake of, say, creating a master race.
Chrysler has already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and is in bankruptcy court. Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow a firm protection from debtors while it restructures, the ultimate result being that the company emerges stronger in the end once debt obligations have been restructured and settled upon in court. Chryslers’ bankruptcy is going smoothly due in large part to the fact that it was already restructured pre-bankruptcy filing by the Obama Administration. For me, the term political restructuring is applicable.
Prior to the actual filing of Chapter 11, the Obama Administration began to discuss options with creditors. In the end, unions and the government will end up with more lucrative payouts than secured creditors whose contracts required that they be first in line to receive money should Chrysler file for bankruptcy. Presently, GM is undergoing a political restructuring as well, which will lead to Chapter 11 if certain conditions set by the government are not met. It appears that the United States government will hold a majority stake, as much as 70%, in GM once the process is complete.
The pre-bankruptcy political restructuring is a problem in and of itself. Had Chrysler and GM simply been left to file for bankruptcy instead of being given the loans that they begged for from the government, political restructuring would not have happened. Instead, government meddling in the private sector led to the governments role in the process and simply delayed the inevitable, a bankruptcy filing. The Bush Administration is at fault for the initial government loans given to GM and Chrysler, the Obama Administration took over from there.
More generally, the political restructuring allows the government to decide who the winners and losers are, regardless of what contracts say. Secured creditors, who were supposed to be first in line, have been shuffled back behind the government and unions. Contracts, in other words, were thrown out the window and the rule of law was discarded for political purposes. Call me cynical but it seems to me that the unions got a sweetheart deal from the Obama Administration because the unions reliably support Democrats with votes and campaign cash.
Should GM and Chrysler emerge from bankruptcy, they will both be controlled by unions and the politicians in Washington. Karl Marx once mentioned something about the power of the worker or workers taking over in some sort of revolution or something like that. However, Marxism is not the biggest concern. Fascism is the number one concern.
Fascism is ideologically neutral; it is simply the desire for power. The Obama Administration has taken steps that are nothing more than a government power grab. When 2/3 of the largest manufacturing industry in a nation is run by Washington, the power lies with politicians, not with the people or with the actual company. Fascism for the sake of solving an economic crisis is no less restricting of freedom and liberty, and is no less destructive to capitalism and the free markets than fascism for the sake of, say, creating a master race.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Value Added? Hold on to your Wallet
The Drudge Report today linked to an article in the Washington Post discussing the growing murmurs on Capitol Hill about a national value added tax (VAT). Already levied in a number of countries around the world, this tax is the equivalent of a sales tax. Currently, only state and local governments levy sales taxes while the national government has abstained from doing so.
The purpose of the VAT is, like all taxes, to raise revenue for our ever-growing national government. This tax, like all taxes, is paid by consumers. Unlike the corporate tax, this is not even a deceptive way to apply a regressive tax to the American people. Corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer by means of higher prices, corporations do not just absorb the blow themselves.
So, the value added tax, for which a rate has yet to be determined but lies somewhere in the range of 10% to 25%, will simply be added on top of the price of the purchased good. The tax is regressive because it will disproportionally affect the poor who, as a percentage of their income, spend more on essential goods than wealthier Americans.
Somehow, Democrats have found a way to explain that the VAT will actually be of more benefit to the poor than a negative. Talk is that the tax will be levied as a means to pay for the massive expansion of government healthcare that the Obama Administration is proposing. As such, the healthcare insurance that the poor would receive, liberal Democrats argue, is a net positive. Basically, this is the government claiming that the poor are not nearly as effective at spending their own money as mother government would be.
Another explanation as to why the VAT is not a bad idea is that other countries have it, and we do not. Seriously, a co-director of the Tax Policy Center used this to defend his VAT proposal. Since when has any proposal been good enough for our country simply because other countries are doing it? If we want to continue to be exceptional, we cannot accept as a legitimate argument that “other countries are doing it…” That is childish.
Brilliant economists have noted that the introduction of an impending sales tax may drive people to stores to buy goods before the sales tax is implemented and help us pull the country out of recession. While that may be true, it will only be a temporary jolt to the economy that will subside immediately when the sales tax is implemented and, in the long run, the economy will suffer because of a decrease in purchasing power.
Some Democrats say that to ease the blow, income taxes might be lowered slightly, especially for the poor, resulting in an increasingly progressive income tax. However, the fact remains that even if income taxes are lowered, the liberals are not introducing new taxes to ease the tax burden; they are introducing new taxes to raise more revenue. That money must come from somewhere and our economy will suffer.
Growing in popularity on the conservative and libertarian front is the FairTax. The FairTax, if implemented, would do away with income taxes all together by repealing the 16th amendment, which allows the national government to levy income taxes, and would impose a 23% sales tax. The argument is that if the national government does not tax investment, as it does via the capital gains tax, and did not tax corporations that more people would invest and save and, in turn, boost economic output. The FairTax also advocates a rebate program that compensates the poor for essentials like food to ensure that the tax does not place a disproportionate burden.
The bottom line is that liberals are trying to raise revenue by adding a national sales tax, on top of the current tax system, that will hurt long term economic prosperity. FairTax advocates want to replace the current tax system by implementing a VAT and repealing the income tax amendment, thus shutting down the IRS. For liberals, the plan is to take more of your money away from you. For conservatives and libertarians, the FairTax is about choice. If you want to pay lower taxes, you buy fewer goods and you are not punished for making more money by a progressive tax system or punished for saving and investing by the burdensome capital gains tax.
The contrast is clear. I hope that the liberal Democrats attempt to implement the VAT because the political backlash will be swift and strong. Another round of tea parties might be in order because the VAT will only fuel the anti-tax fire and give conservatives more motivation to rally. Go ahead, liberals, make my day.
Link to story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html
The purpose of the VAT is, like all taxes, to raise revenue for our ever-growing national government. This tax, like all taxes, is paid by consumers. Unlike the corporate tax, this is not even a deceptive way to apply a regressive tax to the American people. Corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer by means of higher prices, corporations do not just absorb the blow themselves.
So, the value added tax, for which a rate has yet to be determined but lies somewhere in the range of 10% to 25%, will simply be added on top of the price of the purchased good. The tax is regressive because it will disproportionally affect the poor who, as a percentage of their income, spend more on essential goods than wealthier Americans.
Somehow, Democrats have found a way to explain that the VAT will actually be of more benefit to the poor than a negative. Talk is that the tax will be levied as a means to pay for the massive expansion of government healthcare that the Obama Administration is proposing. As such, the healthcare insurance that the poor would receive, liberal Democrats argue, is a net positive. Basically, this is the government claiming that the poor are not nearly as effective at spending their own money as mother government would be.
Another explanation as to why the VAT is not a bad idea is that other countries have it, and we do not. Seriously, a co-director of the Tax Policy Center used this to defend his VAT proposal. Since when has any proposal been good enough for our country simply because other countries are doing it? If we want to continue to be exceptional, we cannot accept as a legitimate argument that “other countries are doing it…” That is childish.
Brilliant economists have noted that the introduction of an impending sales tax may drive people to stores to buy goods before the sales tax is implemented and help us pull the country out of recession. While that may be true, it will only be a temporary jolt to the economy that will subside immediately when the sales tax is implemented and, in the long run, the economy will suffer because of a decrease in purchasing power.
Some Democrats say that to ease the blow, income taxes might be lowered slightly, especially for the poor, resulting in an increasingly progressive income tax. However, the fact remains that even if income taxes are lowered, the liberals are not introducing new taxes to ease the tax burden; they are introducing new taxes to raise more revenue. That money must come from somewhere and our economy will suffer.
Growing in popularity on the conservative and libertarian front is the FairTax. The FairTax, if implemented, would do away with income taxes all together by repealing the 16th amendment, which allows the national government to levy income taxes, and would impose a 23% sales tax. The argument is that if the national government does not tax investment, as it does via the capital gains tax, and did not tax corporations that more people would invest and save and, in turn, boost economic output. The FairTax also advocates a rebate program that compensates the poor for essentials like food to ensure that the tax does not place a disproportionate burden.
The bottom line is that liberals are trying to raise revenue by adding a national sales tax, on top of the current tax system, that will hurt long term economic prosperity. FairTax advocates want to replace the current tax system by implementing a VAT and repealing the income tax amendment, thus shutting down the IRS. For liberals, the plan is to take more of your money away from you. For conservatives and libertarians, the FairTax is about choice. If you want to pay lower taxes, you buy fewer goods and you are not punished for making more money by a progressive tax system or punished for saving and investing by the burdensome capital gains tax.
The contrast is clear. I hope that the liberal Democrats attempt to implement the VAT because the political backlash will be swift and strong. Another round of tea parties might be in order because the VAT will only fuel the anti-tax fire and give conservatives more motivation to rally. Go ahead, liberals, make my day.
Link to story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Obama Nominates Empathetic and Possibly Racist Judge
The long awaited moment has arrived – President Obama has decided on a nominee for the opening on the Supreme Court. Nominee number one for President Obama is Sonia Sotomayor. She is a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Notably, she embodies two minority constituencies; she is a woman and a Hispanic. Diversity is fine, a true statesman and a true conservative should not see color and should only judge people as Dr. M.L. King would, by the content of their character.
So, let’s examine the content of Judge Sotomayors character. From the New York Times (a very reputable and objective news outlet…), I have obtained a list of quotations from Judge Sotomayor. In one, she claims that the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. Clearly, she does not take issue with legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the role of a judge is to apply the law as it reads, not make new law. Legislation should originate in the legislature.
Perhaps President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor because her legislation from the bench will be “empathetic.” Remember, of course, he is quoted as saying that he thought his nominee should have empathy when making decisions. I wonder where the term “empathy” is mentioned in the Constitution?
There is evidence that Judge Sotomayor may be empathetic. She has said that “gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” She goes on to claim that diversity in the Supreme Court “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.” This is troubling because it seems as though Judge Sotomayor does not view the law as though it ought to be applied equally to everyone. This in and of itself is an issue because the law is not something that applies differently to one minority group than another minority group – or a majority group. This is exactly what the Civil Rights Movement used to be about, equality before the law.
The above quotes do no imply, necessarily, the Judge Sotomayor is racist but this quote does: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” In other words, the life and experiences of a Latina woman allows that minority group to reach a better conclusion that a typical white male. If I were to claim that, say, I could reach better conclusions than Clarence Thomas simply because he is black; I would be instantly labeled as a racist white supremacist. It appears as though there is a double standard.
Needless to say, I hope that cooler heads prevail and the Senate votes to not approve President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court. An objective look at the statements I have provided sheds light on Judge Sotomayor and what they reveal is quite disturbing. It is likely that the nomination will be politicized, Democrats versus Republicans (if the Republicans will stand up for their principles). I hope that Democrats will not make this a political issue and look at the record. For example, I understand that 80% of Judge Sotomayors decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court. Does that qualify her to be on the highest court in the land? Also, I hope that Republicans are not afraid to be tough on the nominee because this is a great opportunity to draw a stark contrast between the GOP and President Obama. Some have said that perhaps Republicans will not be tough on Sotomayor because she is Hispanic and Republicans will look to capture the Hispanic vote in the future.
To me, it is simple, this is a test. Will Republicans choose politics or principle? Will the Democrats cave in and fall in line behind Obama or examine the record and vote against Sotomayor? Perhaps they will not have to cave in. Perhaps legislation from the bench and a distortion of equality before the law is what they want. Either way, this could get very interesting.
Link to New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html
So, let’s examine the content of Judge Sotomayors character. From the New York Times (a very reputable and objective news outlet…), I have obtained a list of quotations from Judge Sotomayor. In one, she claims that the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. Clearly, she does not take issue with legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the role of a judge is to apply the law as it reads, not make new law. Legislation should originate in the legislature.
Perhaps President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor because her legislation from the bench will be “empathetic.” Remember, of course, he is quoted as saying that he thought his nominee should have empathy when making decisions. I wonder where the term “empathy” is mentioned in the Constitution?
There is evidence that Judge Sotomayor may be empathetic. She has said that “gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” She goes on to claim that diversity in the Supreme Court “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.” This is troubling because it seems as though Judge Sotomayor does not view the law as though it ought to be applied equally to everyone. This in and of itself is an issue because the law is not something that applies differently to one minority group than another minority group – or a majority group. This is exactly what the Civil Rights Movement used to be about, equality before the law.
The above quotes do no imply, necessarily, the Judge Sotomayor is racist but this quote does: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” In other words, the life and experiences of a Latina woman allows that minority group to reach a better conclusion that a typical white male. If I were to claim that, say, I could reach better conclusions than Clarence Thomas simply because he is black; I would be instantly labeled as a racist white supremacist. It appears as though there is a double standard.
Needless to say, I hope that cooler heads prevail and the Senate votes to not approve President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court. An objective look at the statements I have provided sheds light on Judge Sotomayor and what they reveal is quite disturbing. It is likely that the nomination will be politicized, Democrats versus Republicans (if the Republicans will stand up for their principles). I hope that Democrats will not make this a political issue and look at the record. For example, I understand that 80% of Judge Sotomayors decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court. Does that qualify her to be on the highest court in the land? Also, I hope that Republicans are not afraid to be tough on the nominee because this is a great opportunity to draw a stark contrast between the GOP and President Obama. Some have said that perhaps Republicans will not be tough on Sotomayor because she is Hispanic and Republicans will look to capture the Hispanic vote in the future.
To me, it is simple, this is a test. Will Republicans choose politics or principle? Will the Democrats cave in and fall in line behind Obama or examine the record and vote against Sotomayor? Perhaps they will not have to cave in. Perhaps legislation from the bench and a distortion of equality before the law is what they want. Either way, this could get very interesting.
Link to New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Which Way for the GOP?
The battle over which direction the Republican Party should take is an interesting one. On one side you find conservative stalwarts Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. On the other side you find people like Colin Powell and Tom Ridge. All four are Republicans, three of which served in the Bush Administration.
Limbaugh and Cheney stand on the right flank of the party. Daily, Limbaugh has a radio show with 20 million listeners, a soapbox on which to stand and wax philosophical. Cheney has positioned himself as the most outspoken critic of the Obama Administration on foreign policy. The two are hard line conservatives, social and fiscal, who believe that a rightward shift, a return to conservative principle, is the answer for the GOP.
To the left of Cheney and Limbaugh stands the Ridge/Powell Republicans. Tom Ridge is pro-choice while Powell publically endorsed Barack Obama in the last election cycle. Powell is also on record stating that Americans are willing to pay more taxes for more services.
So, the difference seems pretty clear. Ridge is weak on social conservatism and Powell is a fiscal moderate. Cheney and Limbaugh are both fiscal and social conservatives.
Recently, an intraparty battle is taking place between the two camps. The media, many consultants and strategists and some political figures within the party are telling the Republican Party to move towards the center. Interestingly enough, Democrats have put in their two cents, also saying that the Republican Party will be irrelevant if it does not move towards the center.
First of all, and most obviously, the GOP should not take the advice of Democrats. The Democrats do not have the best interests of their opposition at heart. Sure, the Democrats would love for Republicans to move to the center. That would ensure passage of more Democrat legislation, making the liberal agenda even easier to implement.
Generally moving towards the left on social policy does not seem to be a winning idea either if one looks at recent evidence. States across the country have added amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 in California passed 52% to 48%, defining marriage between a man and a woman. The same Californians voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, who, by the way, believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. In Iowa, where gay marriage recently was legalized by the courts, polls show that more than 60% of Iowans believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. In addition, for the first time, Gallup Polling shows that over 50% of Americans describe themselves as pro-life. Social moderation does not seem to be the answer.
What about fiscal moderation? Does Colin Powell’s argument that Americans want to pay more taxes hold water? The voters of California recently rejected ballot measures that would increase taxes to pay off the states massive debt, which was built up because of a myriad of social programs. Over 20 tax increase measure have been defeated in North Carolina over the past couple of years. Mayor Bloomberg of New York recent came out against tax increases in his city and he is not exactly a hard line conservative. States with higher tax rates, especially highly progressive tax rates, and higher social spending are in huge fiscal messes and their populations are fleeing to tax havens. Florida and Texas are massive super-states with rapidly growing populations and relatively good economies. Texas is in great fiscal shape. Could that be because these two states do not levy income taxes?
In the 2008 election cycle, Republican presidential candidate John McCain represented the moderate wing of the party. Sure, he talked the conservative talk but the country knows his record has a maverick moderate. He seems like the type of Republican that Colin Powell would endorse if that Republican was not running against a black man. President Obama whipped Senator McCain in the 2008 election largely because the GOP base was less than excited about their candidate. Many Republicans claim that they voted for very conservative VP candidate Sarah Palin, it just so happened McCain was on top of the ticket. Let us remember that it was the the true conservatives’ conservative, Ronald Reagan, who won re-election in 1984 with the biggest landslide since before the Civil War.
Conservatism is not dead and cannot be moderated. It is a winner. Republican moderation will leave the party as nothing more than a less left wing faction of the Democrat Party. Republicans must stick to their conservative message so they can say “I told you so” when the liberal policies of the Democrats fail and conservatism is called in to save the day. Rush Limbaugh asked a question that really frames the issue in a thought-provoking way: “If conservatism is dead, then why is everyone going out of their way to try and kill it?”
Limbaugh and Cheney stand on the right flank of the party. Daily, Limbaugh has a radio show with 20 million listeners, a soapbox on which to stand and wax philosophical. Cheney has positioned himself as the most outspoken critic of the Obama Administration on foreign policy. The two are hard line conservatives, social and fiscal, who believe that a rightward shift, a return to conservative principle, is the answer for the GOP.
To the left of Cheney and Limbaugh stands the Ridge/Powell Republicans. Tom Ridge is pro-choice while Powell publically endorsed Barack Obama in the last election cycle. Powell is also on record stating that Americans are willing to pay more taxes for more services.
So, the difference seems pretty clear. Ridge is weak on social conservatism and Powell is a fiscal moderate. Cheney and Limbaugh are both fiscal and social conservatives.
Recently, an intraparty battle is taking place between the two camps. The media, many consultants and strategists and some political figures within the party are telling the Republican Party to move towards the center. Interestingly enough, Democrats have put in their two cents, also saying that the Republican Party will be irrelevant if it does not move towards the center.
First of all, and most obviously, the GOP should not take the advice of Democrats. The Democrats do not have the best interests of their opposition at heart. Sure, the Democrats would love for Republicans to move to the center. That would ensure passage of more Democrat legislation, making the liberal agenda even easier to implement.
Generally moving towards the left on social policy does not seem to be a winning idea either if one looks at recent evidence. States across the country have added amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 in California passed 52% to 48%, defining marriage between a man and a woman. The same Californians voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, who, by the way, believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. In Iowa, where gay marriage recently was legalized by the courts, polls show that more than 60% of Iowans believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. In addition, for the first time, Gallup Polling shows that over 50% of Americans describe themselves as pro-life. Social moderation does not seem to be the answer.
What about fiscal moderation? Does Colin Powell’s argument that Americans want to pay more taxes hold water? The voters of California recently rejected ballot measures that would increase taxes to pay off the states massive debt, which was built up because of a myriad of social programs. Over 20 tax increase measure have been defeated in North Carolina over the past couple of years. Mayor Bloomberg of New York recent came out against tax increases in his city and he is not exactly a hard line conservative. States with higher tax rates, especially highly progressive tax rates, and higher social spending are in huge fiscal messes and their populations are fleeing to tax havens. Florida and Texas are massive super-states with rapidly growing populations and relatively good economies. Texas is in great fiscal shape. Could that be because these two states do not levy income taxes?
In the 2008 election cycle, Republican presidential candidate John McCain represented the moderate wing of the party. Sure, he talked the conservative talk but the country knows his record has a maverick moderate. He seems like the type of Republican that Colin Powell would endorse if that Republican was not running against a black man. President Obama whipped Senator McCain in the 2008 election largely because the GOP base was less than excited about their candidate. Many Republicans claim that they voted for very conservative VP candidate Sarah Palin, it just so happened McCain was on top of the ticket. Let us remember that it was the the true conservatives’ conservative, Ronald Reagan, who won re-election in 1984 with the biggest landslide since before the Civil War.
Conservatism is not dead and cannot be moderated. It is a winner. Republican moderation will leave the party as nothing more than a less left wing faction of the Democrat Party. Republicans must stick to their conservative message so they can say “I told you so” when the liberal policies of the Democrats fail and conservatism is called in to save the day. Rush Limbaugh asked a question that really frames the issue in a thought-provoking way: “If conservatism is dead, then why is everyone going out of their way to try and kill it?”
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Barack is Bush
Having recently discovered a couple of facts about spending growth during the Bush Administration, I have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is, in fact, not the anti-Bush. I ran across these interesting facts from the book Liberal Fascism.
According to the book, Medicare spending increased by 52%, education spending went up 165% and antipoverty spending increased 41% during the Bush years. Antipoverty spending rose above 3% of GDP, an all time mark. Not to mention the colossal entitlement program, Medicare Part D, which is the largest entitlement created since the Great Society in the 1960’s, was signed by Bush. General spending overall increased under Bush at triple the rate that it did while Bill Clinton was president.
While President Bush also opened free trade with a number of countries and cut taxes (although temporarily), his economic policies were not staunchly conservative. In fact, in comparison to the fiscal policy of 2nd half of the Clinton era, Bush was rather moderate, or even liberal. Clinton, in the 2nd half of his eight years, signed “Welfare to Work” legislation that conservatives applauded as a step in the right direction as well as balanced the budget. Although, one must attribute a significant portion of these accomplishments to the “Contract with America” Republican Congress in addition to praising President Clinton for signing the legislation.
President Obama ran as the anti-Bush candidate. A true conservative could have done the same. The economic policies of the Bush Administration, especially the spending, stand somewhere between where a true conservative stands and where Barack Obama, a committed liberal spender, stands. So when President Obama blames the Bush economic and fiscal policies for the economic woes of today, I find it ironic that he is simply perpetuating the same fiscal irresponsibility, painting it as an “investment in the future,” and hoping for different results.
A true conservative would practice fiscal restraint by not turning a budget surplus into a deficit by increasing federal spending on healthcare, education and antipoverty measures, especially at a pace that outstripped inflation by such a great amount like Bush did. A true conservative can criticize President Bush and President Obama for being fiscally irresponsible. In fact, to a true conservative considering the fiscal situation, President Obama is very much like Bush, only more irresponsible.
What caused the recession that President Obama inherited from President Bush, the recession that Obama blames Bush for, was the bursting of the housing bubble. The housing bubble was inflated because of loose monetary policy (not the fault of the President, but of the federal reserve) and the moral hazard created by the federal governments implicit backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which allowed for the two securities firms to accumulate massive amounts of excessively risky debt that would not have absorbed in a truly free market.
To solve the problems that President Bush supposedly created, President Obama is running up massive deficits, larger than the Bush deficits dreamed of being, forcing the Fed to print money. This loose monetary policy will over –supply the market with cash, leading to inflation and another economic bubble. Furthermore, the government now explicitly guarantees the nations’ banks, much of the automobile industry as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In an ironic twist of fate, President Obama is like Bush on steroids when it comes to his fiscal and economic policy. He certainly cannot claim to be the anti-Bush.
According to the book, Medicare spending increased by 52%, education spending went up 165% and antipoverty spending increased 41% during the Bush years. Antipoverty spending rose above 3% of GDP, an all time mark. Not to mention the colossal entitlement program, Medicare Part D, which is the largest entitlement created since the Great Society in the 1960’s, was signed by Bush. General spending overall increased under Bush at triple the rate that it did while Bill Clinton was president.
While President Bush also opened free trade with a number of countries and cut taxes (although temporarily), his economic policies were not staunchly conservative. In fact, in comparison to the fiscal policy of 2nd half of the Clinton era, Bush was rather moderate, or even liberal. Clinton, in the 2nd half of his eight years, signed “Welfare to Work” legislation that conservatives applauded as a step in the right direction as well as balanced the budget. Although, one must attribute a significant portion of these accomplishments to the “Contract with America” Republican Congress in addition to praising President Clinton for signing the legislation.
President Obama ran as the anti-Bush candidate. A true conservative could have done the same. The economic policies of the Bush Administration, especially the spending, stand somewhere between where a true conservative stands and where Barack Obama, a committed liberal spender, stands. So when President Obama blames the Bush economic and fiscal policies for the economic woes of today, I find it ironic that he is simply perpetuating the same fiscal irresponsibility, painting it as an “investment in the future,” and hoping for different results.
A true conservative would practice fiscal restraint by not turning a budget surplus into a deficit by increasing federal spending on healthcare, education and antipoverty measures, especially at a pace that outstripped inflation by such a great amount like Bush did. A true conservative can criticize President Bush and President Obama for being fiscally irresponsible. In fact, to a true conservative considering the fiscal situation, President Obama is very much like Bush, only more irresponsible.
What caused the recession that President Obama inherited from President Bush, the recession that Obama blames Bush for, was the bursting of the housing bubble. The housing bubble was inflated because of loose monetary policy (not the fault of the President, but of the federal reserve) and the moral hazard created by the federal governments implicit backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which allowed for the two securities firms to accumulate massive amounts of excessively risky debt that would not have absorbed in a truly free market.
To solve the problems that President Bush supposedly created, President Obama is running up massive deficits, larger than the Bush deficits dreamed of being, forcing the Fed to print money. This loose monetary policy will over –supply the market with cash, leading to inflation and another economic bubble. Furthermore, the government now explicitly guarantees the nations’ banks, much of the automobile industry as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In an ironic twist of fate, President Obama is like Bush on steroids when it comes to his fiscal and economic policy. He certainly cannot claim to be the anti-Bush.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Cheney & Obama
Former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Obama today both gave foreign policy speeches. Cheney spoke, in essence, to explain as well as defend the measures taken by the Bush Administration to keep America safe from attack post 9/11. President Obama spoke about the direction he plans to take our foreign policy. He also reflected on the Bush Administration.
President Obama said in his address that the United States "went off course" during the Bush Administration and called the approach by Bush "neither effective nor sustainable." As an American, not as a Republican or a conservative, I take offense to such a statement. Obama's predecessor is much maligned for many reasons but the effectiveness of his policies designed to keep America safe, whether you agree with them or not, were very effective. To say that his policies were effective is a 100% truth - this nation has not been attacked since 9/11. For our President to play political and rhetorical games with the success of the Bush policies is irresponsible. President Obama, with that one line, misled the American people. I choose the term "misled" instead of saying "lied to" because I'm a generous person.
For a man who campaigned on a political "Third Way" that focused on transcending politics and focused on results, how can President Obama condemn what the Bush Administration accomplished? Bush policy was 100% effective preventing terrorist attacks in the United States. The results don't get any better and yet Obama has criticized the means which President Bush used to acheive his end. that doesn't sound very "Third Way" to me.
President Obama also hinted in his speech that the Bush Administrations actions did not comply the the ideals set out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I wonder where in either of those documents President Obama finds the right to break ironclad contracts the way that his administration has in the restructuring of Chrysler where creditors, whose contracts explicitly stated that they had first dibs should Chrysler file for bankruptcy, were pushed behind the government and the UAW in line?
In an interesting twist, favorability ratings have risen for both President Bush and Vice President Cheney since January. Bush's ratings have risen 6 points while Cheney's have risen 8 points. Perhaps Cheneys challenges of Obama policy are making sense to voters. Or perhaps the favorability ratings are rising because the media is not constantly criticizing Bush, echoing the Obama campaign message.
If foreign policy issues continue to be all the rage, Republicans may be in better shape to pick up seats in the midterm elections than Democrats are willing to admit. It seems to me that Americans generally want a tough foreign policy and Republicans are more likely to deliver that than the Democrats. Dick Cheney is a prominent figure who has nothing to lose by speaking his mind challenging the Democrat political monopoly in Washington. President Obama could stand some constructive criticism.
Links to Fact Sources:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22804.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/21/cnn-poll-favorable-opinion-of-dick-cheney-on-the-rise/
President Obama said in his address that the United States "went off course" during the Bush Administration and called the approach by Bush "neither effective nor sustainable." As an American, not as a Republican or a conservative, I take offense to such a statement. Obama's predecessor is much maligned for many reasons but the effectiveness of his policies designed to keep America safe, whether you agree with them or not, were very effective. To say that his policies were effective is a 100% truth - this nation has not been attacked since 9/11. For our President to play political and rhetorical games with the success of the Bush policies is irresponsible. President Obama, with that one line, misled the American people. I choose the term "misled" instead of saying "lied to" because I'm a generous person.
For a man who campaigned on a political "Third Way" that focused on transcending politics and focused on results, how can President Obama condemn what the Bush Administration accomplished? Bush policy was 100% effective preventing terrorist attacks in the United States. The results don't get any better and yet Obama has criticized the means which President Bush used to acheive his end. that doesn't sound very "Third Way" to me.
President Obama also hinted in his speech that the Bush Administrations actions did not comply the the ideals set out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I wonder where in either of those documents President Obama finds the right to break ironclad contracts the way that his administration has in the restructuring of Chrysler where creditors, whose contracts explicitly stated that they had first dibs should Chrysler file for bankruptcy, were pushed behind the government and the UAW in line?
In an interesting twist, favorability ratings have risen for both President Bush and Vice President Cheney since January. Bush's ratings have risen 6 points while Cheney's have risen 8 points. Perhaps Cheneys challenges of Obama policy are making sense to voters. Or perhaps the favorability ratings are rising because the media is not constantly criticizing Bush, echoing the Obama campaign message.
If foreign policy issues continue to be all the rage, Republicans may be in better shape to pick up seats in the midterm elections than Democrats are willing to admit. It seems to me that Americans generally want a tough foreign policy and Republicans are more likely to deliver that than the Democrats. Dick Cheney is a prominent figure who has nothing to lose by speaking his mind challenging the Democrat political monopoly in Washington. President Obama could stand some constructive criticism.
Links to Fact Sources:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22804.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/21/cnn-poll-favorable-opinion-of-dick-cheney-on-the-rise/
Senator Hagan Changes Her Mind
Senator Kay Hagan has, per the Raleigh N&O, decided to recommend that the Bush appointed Republican US Attorney for the Eastern part of North Carolina keep his job until his term is over. President Obama reserves the right to fire and hire US Attorney's at his pleasure.
The Bush appointee, George Holding, will apparently serve his full term which is slated to end in September 2010. Were it not for special circumstances, Mr. Holding would very likely be replaced before the end of his term by an Obama appointee to be recommended by Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan made the call in an effort to keep politics out of the investigation process concerning former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and former North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. Edwards is being investigated for possibly funneling campaign cash to his mistress. Easley is under investigation for a myriad of reasons related to improper campaign contributions and a sweetheart land deal.
Hagan initially said that she hoped to move quickly to replace Holding but after meeting with President Obama, she changed her mind noting that she did not want to politicize the investigation or the appointment process. Apparently, President Obama changed his mind about replacing Holding and that is the reason Hagan changed her tune.
Either way, the decision not to replace Holding immediately is a good one. Senator Hagan and President Obama deserve praise for coming to this conclusion - but don't get used to me praising either of these two, it will likely not be a frequent occurance.
Link to Facts:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2972/story/1536256.html
The Bush appointee, George Holding, will apparently serve his full term which is slated to end in September 2010. Were it not for special circumstances, Mr. Holding would very likely be replaced before the end of his term by an Obama appointee to be recommended by Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan made the call in an effort to keep politics out of the investigation process concerning former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and former North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. Edwards is being investigated for possibly funneling campaign cash to his mistress. Easley is under investigation for a myriad of reasons related to improper campaign contributions and a sweetheart land deal.
Hagan initially said that she hoped to move quickly to replace Holding but after meeting with President Obama, she changed her mind noting that she did not want to politicize the investigation or the appointment process. Apparently, President Obama changed his mind about replacing Holding and that is the reason Hagan changed her tune.
Either way, the decision not to replace Holding immediately is a good one. Senator Hagan and President Obama deserve praise for coming to this conclusion - but don't get used to me praising either of these two, it will likely not be a frequent occurance.
Link to Facts:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2972/story/1536256.html
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Racism & Speed Reading
Seems to me that arguments presented in this article show favoritism to minority groups. To me, favoritism based on race is racism. What say you?
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/democrats-seek-financial-rescue-of-minority-owned-broadcasters-2009-05-19.html
Democrats may make a mockery of the Senate by hiring a speed reader, per WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278191732237461.html
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/democrats-seek-financial-rescue-of-minority-owned-broadcasters-2009-05-19.html
Democrats may make a mockery of the Senate by hiring a speed reader, per WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278191732237461.html
How Competition is Stifled by Government
Recently, I have been reading Jonah Goldberg’s book entitled Liberal Fascism. For conservatives, and liberals who are not afraid of a little constructive criticism, I recommend the book. Goldberg exposes some of the reasons that people on the political left initially formulated their opinions on issues. At its core, the book explains that fascism is not an ideology but a desire for ever-increasing state power and that it is neither an inherently right or left wing phenomenon.
Something really caught my eye is his argument that lobbyists exist, and are dramatically increasing in number, because the government continues to insert itself into different areas of our lives via regulation. Lobbyists are a product of this increased regulation. Each new arena invaded and regulated by the government will motivate individuals, or businesses, to hire lobbyists to fight on their behalf during the legislative process. Lobbyists exist because regulation frequently expands into new arenas. As such, hoping that more regulation will decrease the influence of lobbyists is a paradoxical idea.
I, too, wish that lobbyists representing special interests played a significantly smaller role, or no role at all, in crafting legislation. The only feasible way that my hope can become a reality is if the government will stop meddling in business and in peoples’ lives. It stands to reason that if increased regulation is positively correlated with increased lobbyist presence, then less regulation will result in fewer lobbyists. Goldberg’s assessment is that the relationship is not only positively correlated but causal; I agree.
Lobbyists are hired by interest groups to ensure that legislation will be as painless for that interest group as possible. ExxonMobil hires lobbyists whose sole purpose is to ensure that legislation is as favorable, or does as little damage as possible, for the company. Less able to hire lobbyists are smaller oil companies; they are less powerful in the political actors in the political process as a result. Because of this, large companies like ExxonMobil are relatively more likely to receive friendly terms in the legislation than the smaller, less powerful oil companies. If this is indeed the result, that larger companies receive more favorable treatment in the legislative process, then regulatory legislation necessarily squeezes out small business in favor of big business.
Ironically, the same politicians, usually the liberal ones, that berate big businesses like ExxonMobil are the same politicians that criticize the massive companies’ market power. So, the liberal politicians are critical of the results of their own meddling. They, too, are critical of the lobbyists that their regulation is the cause of.
Question is, why do politicians give in to special interest lobbyists? The answer is simple; because large corporations donate massive amounts of money to candidates hoping to buy favor with the candidate should he get elected. Campaign donations are essentially buying future favors. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of caving into special interests and crafting legislation favorable to interest groups. Since 1990, ExxonMobil, the parent company, has donated over $10 million to political candidates.
Regulatory structures and government meddling in the private sector necessitates the existence of lobbyists. The result is less competition in the free market because large companies, which are more politically powerful, receive favorable legislation that squeezes small business out of the market. Government, when led by either party, meddles in private affairs is in bed with big business and is thus stifling competition in the American economy.
Something really caught my eye is his argument that lobbyists exist, and are dramatically increasing in number, because the government continues to insert itself into different areas of our lives via regulation. Lobbyists are a product of this increased regulation. Each new arena invaded and regulated by the government will motivate individuals, or businesses, to hire lobbyists to fight on their behalf during the legislative process. Lobbyists exist because regulation frequently expands into new arenas. As such, hoping that more regulation will decrease the influence of lobbyists is a paradoxical idea.
I, too, wish that lobbyists representing special interests played a significantly smaller role, or no role at all, in crafting legislation. The only feasible way that my hope can become a reality is if the government will stop meddling in business and in peoples’ lives. It stands to reason that if increased regulation is positively correlated with increased lobbyist presence, then less regulation will result in fewer lobbyists. Goldberg’s assessment is that the relationship is not only positively correlated but causal; I agree.
Lobbyists are hired by interest groups to ensure that legislation will be as painless for that interest group as possible. ExxonMobil hires lobbyists whose sole purpose is to ensure that legislation is as favorable, or does as little damage as possible, for the company. Less able to hire lobbyists are smaller oil companies; they are less powerful in the political actors in the political process as a result. Because of this, large companies like ExxonMobil are relatively more likely to receive friendly terms in the legislation than the smaller, less powerful oil companies. If this is indeed the result, that larger companies receive more favorable treatment in the legislative process, then regulatory legislation necessarily squeezes out small business in favor of big business.
Ironically, the same politicians, usually the liberal ones, that berate big businesses like ExxonMobil are the same politicians that criticize the massive companies’ market power. So, the liberal politicians are critical of the results of their own meddling. They, too, are critical of the lobbyists that their regulation is the cause of.
Question is, why do politicians give in to special interest lobbyists? The answer is simple; because large corporations donate massive amounts of money to candidates hoping to buy favor with the candidate should he get elected. Campaign donations are essentially buying future favors. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of caving into special interests and crafting legislation favorable to interest groups. Since 1990, ExxonMobil, the parent company, has donated over $10 million to political candidates.
Regulatory structures and government meddling in the private sector necessitates the existence of lobbyists. The result is less competition in the free market because large companies, which are more politically powerful, receive favorable legislation that squeezes small business out of the market. Government, when led by either party, meddles in private affairs is in bed with big business and is thus stifling competition in the American economy.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Healthcare
Below is a link to a Wall Street Joural article that outlines a real dilemma that government healthcare will lead to:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268737705832167.html
Also on the Wall Street Journal is an article that compares high-tax states to low-tax states. Naturally, the states with the fewest and lowest taxes are relatively better off. Below is the link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268737705832167.html
Also on the Wall Street Journal is an article that compares high-tax states to low-tax states. Naturally, the states with the fewest and lowest taxes are relatively better off. Below is the link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html
The Problem(s) by the Bay(s)
Interestingly enough, there are two problems for the Democrat Party in two different Bay areas. One of the problems is on the left coast and her name is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The other problem is in Cuba - it's the Gitmo dilemma.
A few days ago, Speaker Pelosi accused the CIA of misleading Congress. She claimed that she did not know that the United States was using the enhanced interrogation technique called waterboarding. Leon Panetta, the current director of the CIA who was appointed by Barack Obama, recently released a memo to the Agency explaining that notes from a 2002 briefing, where Speaker Pelosi was present, clearly indicate the the Speaker had full knowledge of the United States' use of waterboarding on War on Terror Detainees. Bottom line, Speaker Pelosi said that the CIA misled her by not explaining that waterboarding was being used and Mr. Panetta's recent memo implies that Pelosi's claims are false.
Once Speaker Pelosi realized that saying the CIA misled to her might not be a good political move, she immediately tried to diffuse the situation by saying that the Bush Administration was the real reason she was misled. It seems that now Speaker Pelosi can even blame the Bush Administration for her own stupidity.
Speaker Pelosi is currently a liability to the Democrat Party. The Kingpin on Capitol Hill is in political trouble.
Her lies are evidence that she is an unprincipled politician that moves with the popular sentiment. When briefed in 2002 that waterboarding was being used (if, in fact, the CIA notes are correct and she was briefed), she did not object and so we are to assume that she did not find the act objectionable. Now, in 2009, she considers waterboarding to be tortore and morally objectionable. Which is it?
It is apparent that Speaker Pelosi does not have a guiding set of principles, but simply a desire maintain power by shifting with the political breeze.
Closing Guantanamo Bay is becoming an issue that may hurt Democrats, especially the Obama Administration, if they are not careful. The debate over closing the facility could become the wedge issue that Republicans need to make gains in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans potentially have majority support from the American people on their position that the detention center should not be closed, if that means terrorists being released or imprisioned in the United States.
President Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay. He signed an executive order soon after his inauguration to close the facility to make good on his campaign promise. Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to have a plan for what to do with the 240 or so terrorists locked up at Gitmo. He has only a few options; the terrorists can either be released into the United States, imprisoned in the United States, released in a foreign country or imprisoned in a foreign country.
The problem is, foreign nations are not very receptive to the idea of providing a home for the terrorists. Who could blame them? Why would any nation, other than a terrorist haven that would release the inmates to fight American soldiers, agree to take an inmate from us that we have decided is too dangerous to have in our own country? Also, Americans are rightly opposed to having the inmates released or imprisoned on home soil. So what is President Obama to do? He will either have to convince another nation to take our prisoners, relocate them to the United States and risk a popular backlash from the American people, providing the GOP with a political booster shot, or leave them in Gitmo, breaking his own campaign promise and thereby alienating his political left flank and breaking his campaign promise.
I am anxiously waiting to see what course of action is taken by the President. He can either do the right thing for our national security interest and leave the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay or he can cave to pressure from the left and make a politically risky move that endangers our national security. The fact that we are even in this mess, and that the debate is a legitimate one in liberal circles, is proof to me that Democrats are, in fact, weak on national security.
National Security has long been a Republican issue and Americans, in general, seem to trust the GOP more than the Democrats when it comes to being tough in the War on Terror. The electorate may not yet be ready in 2010 to trust Republicans on the economy, but they just might be willing to vote Republican because of foreign policy concerns. After all, there is no denying that the Bush Administration, however maligned, did keep the country safe for the entirity of its time in office post-9/11.
A few days ago, Speaker Pelosi accused the CIA of misleading Congress. She claimed that she did not know that the United States was using the enhanced interrogation technique called waterboarding. Leon Panetta, the current director of the CIA who was appointed by Barack Obama, recently released a memo to the Agency explaining that notes from a 2002 briefing, where Speaker Pelosi was present, clearly indicate the the Speaker had full knowledge of the United States' use of waterboarding on War on Terror Detainees. Bottom line, Speaker Pelosi said that the CIA misled her by not explaining that waterboarding was being used and Mr. Panetta's recent memo implies that Pelosi's claims are false.
Once Speaker Pelosi realized that saying the CIA misled to her might not be a good political move, she immediately tried to diffuse the situation by saying that the Bush Administration was the real reason she was misled. It seems that now Speaker Pelosi can even blame the Bush Administration for her own stupidity.
Speaker Pelosi is currently a liability to the Democrat Party. The Kingpin on Capitol Hill is in political trouble.
Her lies are evidence that she is an unprincipled politician that moves with the popular sentiment. When briefed in 2002 that waterboarding was being used (if, in fact, the CIA notes are correct and she was briefed), she did not object and so we are to assume that she did not find the act objectionable. Now, in 2009, she considers waterboarding to be tortore and morally objectionable. Which is it?
It is apparent that Speaker Pelosi does not have a guiding set of principles, but simply a desire maintain power by shifting with the political breeze.
Closing Guantanamo Bay is becoming an issue that may hurt Democrats, especially the Obama Administration, if they are not careful. The debate over closing the facility could become the wedge issue that Republicans need to make gains in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans potentially have majority support from the American people on their position that the detention center should not be closed, if that means terrorists being released or imprisioned in the United States.
President Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay. He signed an executive order soon after his inauguration to close the facility to make good on his campaign promise. Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to have a plan for what to do with the 240 or so terrorists locked up at Gitmo. He has only a few options; the terrorists can either be released into the United States, imprisoned in the United States, released in a foreign country or imprisoned in a foreign country.
The problem is, foreign nations are not very receptive to the idea of providing a home for the terrorists. Who could blame them? Why would any nation, other than a terrorist haven that would release the inmates to fight American soldiers, agree to take an inmate from us that we have decided is too dangerous to have in our own country? Also, Americans are rightly opposed to having the inmates released or imprisoned on home soil. So what is President Obama to do? He will either have to convince another nation to take our prisoners, relocate them to the United States and risk a popular backlash from the American people, providing the GOP with a political booster shot, or leave them in Gitmo, breaking his own campaign promise and thereby alienating his political left flank and breaking his campaign promise.
I am anxiously waiting to see what course of action is taken by the President. He can either do the right thing for our national security interest and leave the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay or he can cave to pressure from the left and make a politically risky move that endangers our national security. The fact that we are even in this mess, and that the debate is a legitimate one in liberal circles, is proof to me that Democrats are, in fact, weak on national security.
National Security has long been a Republican issue and Americans, in general, seem to trust the GOP more than the Democrats when it comes to being tough in the War on Terror. The electorate may not yet be ready in 2010 to trust Republicans on the economy, but they just might be willing to vote Republican because of foreign policy concerns. After all, there is no denying that the Bush Administration, however maligned, did keep the country safe for the entirity of its time in office post-9/11.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Where Greed Resides
I just read an article on WRAL.com - the link is below:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5166255/
In one of the comments, someone made the point that this is an example of hypocritical governance. While politicians, especially the ones hostile to business, tell us that Wall Street has a monopoly on greed, the truth is that government itself might be the most greedy institution of all.
I think that our government officials are hypocrites. While our liberal Democrat politicians blame excessive Wall Street greed for our economic woes, they fail to look and see the greed in their own midst. Former Governor Mike Easley, for example, is under fire for alleged campaign finance violations, sweetheart land deals and possible wrongdoing concerning his wifes current position at NCSU. This is on top of former Illinois Gov. Blago's apparent "pay to play" Senate seat scandal. Other Democrats include Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd and his possible sweetheart mortage deal with Countrywide. Our own President, Barack Obama, may have even received a land/home deal that was too good to be true from Tony Rezco.
Little known fact about the connection between excessively greedy Wall Street and our moral politicians - the top two recipients of campaign donations from AIG and its employees (the derivatives insurer that received billions in bailout cash) were Chris Dodd and President Obama...
Greed in our capital cities does not stop at the desire for more money. Politicians are greedy for more power. Ironically, Dodd and Obama are using greed as a reason why the government should have more regulatory power over Wall Street. Exploiting greed as a means to fill their greedy appetites for power - that's an interesting tactic, diverting public attention from their own greedy intentions by calling Wall Street excessively greedy. I would argue that political greed is the reason that the American people need to re-assert power over their government.
At the core of my arguments lays a conservative complaint. Our government is too big and too powerful. The people of North Carolina and the United States are not in power anymore. We are handled by politicians who claim the moral high road, who claim to defend the rights of the individuals that make up our great country, but who seem to be walking down the low road and diverting our attention elsewhere.
We conservatives put all of our faith in the individual American and not in the hypocritical politicians attempting to tell us what is best. To them, I say stop trying to divert attention away from your deeds and face the music. If you acted as ethically as you implore others to, you might have the legitimate moral high ground point your finger at the misdeeds of others.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5166255/
In one of the comments, someone made the point that this is an example of hypocritical governance. While politicians, especially the ones hostile to business, tell us that Wall Street has a monopoly on greed, the truth is that government itself might be the most greedy institution of all.
I think that our government officials are hypocrites. While our liberal Democrat politicians blame excessive Wall Street greed for our economic woes, they fail to look and see the greed in their own midst. Former Governor Mike Easley, for example, is under fire for alleged campaign finance violations, sweetheart land deals and possible wrongdoing concerning his wifes current position at NCSU. This is on top of former Illinois Gov. Blago's apparent "pay to play" Senate seat scandal. Other Democrats include Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd and his possible sweetheart mortage deal with Countrywide. Our own President, Barack Obama, may have even received a land/home deal that was too good to be true from Tony Rezco.
Little known fact about the connection between excessively greedy Wall Street and our moral politicians - the top two recipients of campaign donations from AIG and its employees (the derivatives insurer that received billions in bailout cash) were Chris Dodd and President Obama...
Greed in our capital cities does not stop at the desire for more money. Politicians are greedy for more power. Ironically, Dodd and Obama are using greed as a reason why the government should have more regulatory power over Wall Street. Exploiting greed as a means to fill their greedy appetites for power - that's an interesting tactic, diverting public attention from their own greedy intentions by calling Wall Street excessively greedy. I would argue that political greed is the reason that the American people need to re-assert power over their government.
At the core of my arguments lays a conservative complaint. Our government is too big and too powerful. The people of North Carolina and the United States are not in power anymore. We are handled by politicians who claim the moral high road, who claim to defend the rights of the individuals that make up our great country, but who seem to be walking down the low road and diverting our attention elsewhere.
We conservatives put all of our faith in the individual American and not in the hypocritical politicians attempting to tell us what is best. To them, I say stop trying to divert attention away from your deeds and face the music. If you acted as ethically as you implore others to, you might have the legitimate moral high ground point your finger at the misdeeds of others.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Introduction
As someone who often has an opinion on political issues, and as someone who feels that others would benefit from knowing my opinion, I thought it would be proper for me to create a blog where I am able to opine publicly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)