Monday, June 20, 2011

Pelosi's All Knowing Hypocrisy

House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi frequently positions herself as "friend of the middle class." In reality that would have been like Joseph Stalin calling himself "friend to the Peasant Farmer" in 1934.

Stalin stole their land, livestock and forced them to collectivize. Better than 14 million Peasant Farmers perished during this time of collectivization in the former Soviet Union. Stories are told about "Kulaks" who were violently forced from their land, herded into unheated cattle cars and shipped east. The term "Kulak" translates to a landowning farmer. One "Kulak" that comes to mind had 200 acres of land, 20 cows, 10 horses, some Hogs and Chickens and two barns. These "rich farmers" resisted and the Bolsheviks shot both adult men dead. The women were given five minutes to grab the children and whatever they could carry. Then it was on to the train for their 1000 mile junket to Siberia.

Of course, this action was in the interest of the common good. "The people" who Bolsheviks represented with hypocritical ardor, would ultimately benefit from this practice. Never mind how many would perish in the process! The countless tales of women arriving in snowbound Siberia, digging shallow holes and laying atop their children to keep them from freezing, was considered "for the common good." The famine and starvation these Peasants endured was a small price to pay when observing the big picture. To understand "why" was simply beyond the average persons' grasp! Stalinists considered all actions necessary for the betterment of the whole. Comrade Stalin knew best. Those who questioned him would quickly became proud holders of "a ticket;" to the Gulag!

While the methods may have softened, the mentality remains the same. Nancy Pelosi epitomizes "Americas' ruling class." She is one of those "all knowing elites" referenced in "E" is for English. One could reason that her "35 million plus" in personal assets might make it impossible for her to identity with the $30,000 per year "Disaffecteds" referenced in my June 16th blog. But in her mind, she is their ambassador!

Actually, she is as "out of touch as any human being on the planet!" If she were not, she would be first in line to condemn the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency: Americas "foremost job killer." If she truly cared about Americas' unemployed, she would be "burning the midnight oil" seeking ways to get people back to work. This might be as simple as joining Republicans in their plea to federal agencies to please "show indisputable facts and not theories when delaying issuance of permits, or enacting unnecessary lawsuits.

Maybe it's not Nancy's way! She had demonstrated little sympathy for the pocketbooks of Middle America! A vocal advocate of Henry Waxman's creation, AKA "Cap and Trade," her rationale was "we have a planet to save." It is a position that is held by surprisingly large numbers of politicians! Not the majority, perhaps. But there were enough votes either through genuine belief or via naive adoption to pass the bill in the House of Representitves. The Senate later proved to be a "hurdle too high." In the end, the E.P.A. proceeded anyway!

The Environmental Protection Agency is now larger than the Internal Revenue Service. As expected, a big staff translates to "the need to create more work to insure that everyone remain busy." It generally translates to "overzealousness." This can lead to problems.

At the top of the list may be the question of "hydralic fracturing." This process of "pumping water, sand and trace chemicals" into a completed wellbore is the subject of vigorous debate. Proponents affirm correctly that the process unlocks vast stores of oil and natural gas. The opposition led by an aggressive E.P.A. cite issues ranging from "earthquakes to fire in your kitchen faucet."

Evidence is inconclusive at best. Many assertions are simply misrepresentations or exaggerations! The E.P.A. largely makes determinations based on limited studies by inside panels. Their way often does not to consult industry professionals. Perhaps these outside conclusions might deviate from what is politically correct! They might even be at odds with a pre-determined agenda!

From a practical point of view, the country needs to become energy independent. The United States has more energy resources than any country in the world. But, like no other country, we limit or prohibit access to these resources. Would Nancy Pelosi care if this practice might be standing in the way of a recovery? You would think that she would! After all, she calls herself a "friend of the middle class!" Hydrallic fracturing potentially creates hundred of thousands of high paying jobs. A lot would go to holders of a G.E.D.! These are working people who have been especially hurt by the recession.

Maybe in her mind, Nancy Pelosi is convinced that she is acting in the best interest of America! Stalinists concluded the act of collectivation was in the interest of both Peasants, Working Class and the overall common good. The question becomes, "is this the kind of America most of us want?"

What about the "unemployed Joe?" Would he bank on E.P.A. wisdom? Or would he take his chances that they were wrong? The answer is too predictable. That's why "elites" such as Ms. Pelosi argue that these "Disaffecteds" simply lack the depth to understand the big picture.

When Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter in 1980, the centerpiece of his argument was the need to "reduce the cost of government." This translated to downsizing overstaffed agencies such as the E.P.A.. As Reagan phraised, "when government becomes too large, in their efforts to help, they often bring about harm."

It's probable that Nancy Pelosi would differ with President Reagan. But Senator Rand Paul quickly pointed out that fiscal sanity begins with a government that knows how to live within its means. His proposed budget alternative makes great strides in this direction. The plan also has an answer to overzealousness: "It is more difficult to over regulate when you are understaffed."

From "Joe Six-Pack's" point of view, "it's about jobs!" He will take the $22 per hour job at the well and worry about the downside of "hydralic fracturing" later! Nancy Pelosi would tell you this. In her eyes, "Joe Six-Pack" is simply not sufficiently astute on the subject. While initially painful, "our way" is for the "common good."

Sound familiar?

Thursday, June 16, 2011

"Disaffecteds"- Understanding Overlooked America

Henry Olsen may have hit on the "key to the 2012 Presidential election." In his June 20th, National Review article, he profoundly lent insight on "Disaffecteds," what may be "overlooked America."

As Olsen determined "Disaffecteds" are primarily(77%) blue-color whites, and 89% do not hold a college degree." Two thirds of them are listed as "political independents." Most are opposed to free trade. Most make less than $30,000 per year. 44% are parents. Two thirds favor a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts. Only 28% give Obama a positive approval rating and only 22% would vote to re-elect him. As a whole, the white "Disaffecteds" "are opposed to today's left."

It might be concluded that these "Disaffecteds" are members of the Tea Party. Not necessarily! Per this study, "only 19%" support the Tea Party and "67% have no opinion." This is the highest of any Pew group.

What Olsen didn't reference in his close observation was "how many "Disaffecteds" would support the "E" Amendment?" Chances are, most if not all would! Here's why:

The "E" amendment is about returning control to the middle class. "Disaffecteds" would immediately pick up on the importance of I.D. cards. Whether real or imagined, they are quick to accuse illegals of taking employment from legal citizens. While evidence suggests that illegals accept jobs that legal citizens pass on, exceptions abound.

"English" only voting ballots and drivers license testing would draw support from "Disaffecteds." Striking Phyler versus Doe would be extremely popular with this group. The idea of someone, even a child, illegally receiving entitlements infuriates them!

So many Disaffecteds make up what is commonly referred to as "the working poor." They are extremely sensitive to any legislation that might change the entitlement structure. This may have been the reason behind Jane Corwin's defeat in the recent New York Congressional race. She was unable to connect with these voters while her opponent hammered her on Paul Ryan's proposed plan for Medicare and Medicaid.

Often the key is communication. Marco Rubio grabbed "Disaffected's" attention in the Florida Senate race when he proposed that "we buy our health insurance like we buy our car insurance." This is easy to understand. If you have only three or four companies allowed to compete for the health care business, you will pay more. Just imagine if only State Farm, Allstate and Nationwide were our auto options? Conversely, if all 1300 Health Insurance companies could compete, the premiums would drop. "Joe Six-pack" understands this.

Ryan's plan would benefit them more than most. Besides, any plan is better than no plan! At the present course, the entire program will be bankrupt if immediate attention is not given. Ryan's plan is sound. But he may well have presented it to the American people in Russian! Few understand it, "Disaffecteds" included. The Democrat was able to pick up on this and took the election as a result.

"Disaffecteds" would understand the "E" Amendment's ban on "outsourcing any job that required an Americans' social security number." True, the jobs would be mostly low paying. But "Disaffecteds" would see them as "easy service jobs with benefits." This translates to "an opportunity for one spouse to get the family on a group health insurance plan while the other pursued 1099 work." Many "Disaffecteds" work in a small business, often as a Sole Proprietor. This could be huge; a decisive factor that would win their vote. It has to do with "living on the edge." Establishment Republicans often can't relate to this mentality.

"Disaffecteds" typically distrust liberalism and do not have confidence that the government knows what to do. Yet, according to Olsen's study almost three-fourths of them want to focus on domestic affairs as opposed to world affairs. This reflects hardline Democrats and Tea Partiers to some extent. This very notion could be the "in" the Tea Party might seek if they choose to cultivate this group.

Most "Disaffecteds" could be attracted by legislation that addressed their immediate needs while simultaneously raising their standing in society. Everyone likes to feel that they are significant. The "E" Amendment does this when it invites these overlooked and often forgotten Americans to become "Eagles."

What really "rings their bell" is job creation. And, the "promise of a level playing field" where they are the prime benefactors. They do not have a problem with downsizing the government or "reducing constitutional costs." As long as it doesn't translate to eliminating their own entitlements.

Social Stratificationists might catagorize "Disaffecteds" as "lower middle class." Labels aside, they stand as the likely key to the 2012 Presidential election. Unlocking the gate may be as easy as asking the right questions. Or introducing the most strategically beneficial legislation.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

"Navigating Article V"

We continue to behold the insightfulness of our founding fathers! Especially when dissecting the U.S. Constituton. Article Five confirmed concern with future political leaders' arrogance and stubborness in regard to changing or altering existing laws.

This has recently surfaced in a veiled threat to derail Obamacare. House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor sees it as an option. It works something like this:

"Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment and subsequent ratification.

"Amendments may be proposed by either two-third of both houses of the United States Congress or by a national convention. This convention can be assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become part of the Constitution amendments must then be ratified either by approval of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states." 1

In essence, it would take two-thirds of the states to call a convention and three-fourths of the states to change the law. With 26 states currently filing suit, we are obviously getting close to the necessary 37 needed to kill Obamacare; or make any other change deemed necessary.

This may be the ultimate strategy for bringing about "term limits" for Senators and Congressmen.

The discussion on term limits is not extreme. It is currently practiced by a number of states. It is not new. While Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul made it an issue in his 2010 election campaign, the question has been around for years. It came up in the 1992 Presidential debate. Bill Clinton voiced his oppostion to it on grounds that "it would reduce the small states' influence." This is true. Former Arkansas Congressman, Wilbur Mills and ex-Alaska Senator, Ted Stevens wielded tremendous power due to seniority. Seniority becomes irrelevant when the maximum tenure is 12 years.

President Clinton's viewpoint holds some credence. But it also works to hold seats indefinitely for well funded Congressmen and Senators. It likewise facilitates and perpetuates the influence of lobbyists.

Our founding fathers never envisioned career politicians. The premise behind the framers' creation was a government made up of representitves from all walks of life, including different levels of society. They envisioned "citizens taking a break from their farm, business or profession to perform civic duty."

Unspoken was the assumption that such a system would insure different participants with a flow of new ideas. Senate and House seats were never considered anything but "owned" by the people of their respected states.

Over time the perception of civic duty has become somewhat altered. Thirty and Forty year tenures became commonplace. To be sure there are and have been Congressmen and Senators who have served their country honorably. There have also been a few "Bill Frists" who promised never to serve terms longer than a cumulative 12 years. But those have been the exception, not the rule.

There is an obvious reason! These House and Senate seats are some of the best jobs in America. With them comes both influence and income that far exceed the chamber and paycheck! Who would voluntarily "fire" themself from the best job in America?"

Cynics suggest that "you could never get a term limits bill through the House and and Senate." That position is wellfounded! Considering the "friction" almost certain to be at hand, it would closely resemble a "fools errand."

But what about Article Five? Could two-thirds of the states call a convention to discuss it? And if three-fourths of the states said "yes,"
could it become a reality?

"The Constitution does not make clear how the Convention is to be composed; presumably, Congress-through a federal statute-would be able to determine how the delegates are chosen and to provide for other procedural issues." 2

We can conclude that the proponent states would engage in daily if not hourly communcication. Unlike our founding fathers, they have the internet! In short, it is a viable option! If and when we decide to take this route, it would be only a matter of time.

There will never be an argument from Liberals or Conservatives regarding the ingenuity of our Constitution. Perhaps the framers predicted this day would come. Our people have grown apathetic where government is concerned. To most, "they" are in Washington and "we" are here. There is nothing that "we" can do to change that. But there is! The concept of a constitutional convention potentially brings decision making back to Main street. The founding fathers evidently thought it might become necessary to "flush out the system" from time to time. That's why Article Five included an alternative.

1- Article Five of the Constitution- Wikipedia
2- Article Five of the Constitution- 4Law School