To truly understand the mismanagement of immigration control, we must put a magnifying glass on the current process.
Most Americans are unaware of the Immigration lottery. Even fewer understand how it works. In condensed fashion, here it is: The United States government admits 50,000 immigrants per year via a lottery. In essence, these fortunates put their names in the state department's hat and receive a green card when their names are drawn.
No attempt is made to judge qualification. It seems that the only real qualification is "diversity." These "new Americans" could be illiterate. They could be coming from terrorist countries. Doesn't matter. As long as they are "diverse," it's okay.
Let's put it into a different perspective. What if a corporation hired people without reading their resumes? How about a professional baseball team that selected it's players from the telephone book? Or, a university that chose it's students from drawing names from fishbowls at local high schools?
Most Americans would ask, "are we stupid?"
I think we are! It almost lends credence to the belief that some unseen power is attempting to destroy America at the roots by allowing anybody and everybody into our country. Diversity, which is rapidly becoming the politically correct term for "an excuse to encourage and facilitate a lower standard," is always the lone justification.
The "Diversity Immigrant Visa Program" is not open to residents of countries that already send thousands of immigrants each year through other categories of admission. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians and Poles, to name a few, aren't eligible. Non-excluded countries are issued visas on how many from that country have already been accepted. The fewer a country may send, the more diversity visas it receives.
What do these "diversity" applicants need to have on their resume? A high school diploma OR two years working at a job that requires two years of training to hold. That's it!
The question becomes, "how can we correct this ill conceived practice?"
The immigration proposal outlined in "E" is for English introduces a points system that insures that America gets the most qualified immigrants. It works like this:
+-If you are under 30, you will receive 1 point.
+-If you are under 30 and have a college degree, you will receive a bonus point.
+- A high school diploma earns one point.
+- An undergraduate degree earns two point.
+- An advanced degree earns an additional point.
+- A medical degree earns three additional points.
+- The ability to pass a 4th grade English proficiency test earns a half point.
+- The ability to pass a high school English proficiency test earns two points.
+- A nursing degree gains an additional half point as does an engineering degree.
+- A trade is worth an additional half point.
+- If your departing country has NATO membership, you will receive an additional point.
+ Any receiver of a PHD at an American college or university would automatically receive a green card.
What about family ties in the United States. Under the current system, parents and children are given a higher priority than siblings. This would change. Under the "E" plan, children would receive three points,siblings would receive two points and parents one point.
So, if 27-year-old,Joseph Molinski of Kracow, Poland, an engineer capable of passing a high school English proficiency test seeks to join his brother in Skokie, Illinois, his qualification points would tally in this manner:
+-1 point because he was under 30
+-1 point because he had a high school diploma
+-2 points because he had a undergraduate degree
+-1 bonus point because he was both under 30 and held an college degree
+- 1/2 point because his degree was in engineering
+- 2 points because he was capable of passing a high school English proficiency test
+- 2 points because he had a sibling already residing in the United States.
+- 1 point because Poland is a member of N.A.T.O.
The United States would determine how many visas would be issued. The sole determinant would be cumulative points. There would be no quota or limit placed on any country.
Joseph's point total would be 10.5. If he was in the top percentile of applicants, he would be allowed to immigrate. It would not matter how many or how few fellow applicants came from Poland. Our goal would be simple: We want "the best of the best." Diversity would be irrelevent.
The idea behind the plan is very simple. We want younger, better educated immigrants more capable of immediate assimulation. The "E" plan would insure it. It would also be a major step toward perserving Social Security. People are livng longer than when the plan was conceived. That's good. But, it translates to more people receiving the entitlement. Our population is aging. We need younger, better educated and more qualified people to enter our work force.
Predicably, opponents of the plan would describe it as "racist." Their contention would be, "if you give preference to English speakers, you will be favoring certain countries?" And what about giving weight to applicants departing from NATO countries? After all, most of those countries are in Europe!
78% of immigrants arriving on diversity visas last year were born in Africa or Asia. Only 19% entered from Europe. The top ten sending countries were(in order) Ethiopia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana, Ukraine, Morocco, and Nepal. Germany which has traditionally sent large numbers of immigrants to the U.S. ranked 16.
The greatest concern, even more than accepting less qualified applicants, is security. This past July a House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would abolish the diversity lottery. Their reasoning was based on heightened security risks. There was also evidence of "pervasive fraud" in applications to the program including the use of fake birth certificates and passports to support multiple entries for a single person.
The immigration points system as outlined in "E" is for English has been referred to as the "most fair, practical and comprehensive" plan yet to be conceived. It simply guarantees a better educated, more qualified immigrant. Better yet, it arrests the aging of America. This may be the most fundamental point in saving Social Security.
The "E" plan defintely needs to be part of immigration reform discussion; politically correct or not.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Perry's Immigration positions: "How they must be interpreted."
Many conservatives are confused with Texas Governor, Rick Perry's immigration position. With the recent debate tone it's easy to understand why!
Texas waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. As Mitt Romney correctly underscored, it amounted to about $22,000 per year in savings for these students. "Why would Governor Perry defend such an action?"
Some have suggested that Governor Perry may be "soft" on illegal immigration. If he were not, why would he oppose the building of fences along Texas' 1200 mile border?
Interestly enough the questions mostly came from three Republican candidates from "blue states:" Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. The questions seemed fair and pertinent. Yet, in hearing Governor Perry's response, I came away with the feeling that he was attempting to educate novices on both subjects.
Let's look at the tuition question first. These students were children of illegal aliens. They were not anchor babies. They had entered the country with their parents legally. Their parents came to the country on visas that were generally education or religious in nature. The visas expired. The children meanwhile had attended and graduated from Texas public schools. They had legally applied for citizenship. Should they have been afforded exemption from out-of-state tuition? All but four of the Texas Congressmen and Senators thought so! Were they wrong? They didn't think so. Neither did Governor Perry. Almost unanamously they concluded that it was "a Texas thing." On that subject, they were 100% correct. It is a decision that should be made on the state level. They made it.
Republicans from these "blue" states often don't connect with border issues. They simply have no experience. It is likely that Michelle Bachmann knows as much about this subject as Rick Perry knows about "ice fishing for Walleye at Lake of the Woods." Romney is as familiar with the naturalization process as Perry is fluent on the joys of "polo matches at Martha's Vineyard."
True it arouses the conservative base with anti-Hispanic resentment. But this is a clear ticket to losing the general election. Neither Bachmann or Romney have connected with Latinos. Republicans must win 40% of the Hispanic vote. It is doubtful that either Bachmann or Romney can capture 20% of this crucial vote. That's why I do not think that either can defeat Barack Obama in the general election. No matter how awful the economy may be next year!
Governor Perry held his ground. In doing so he demonstrated conviction. It gets down to two things: "do the individual states have the right to make this call?" And, "are we willing to look at immigration on a case-by-case basis?" True, most of the Republican base doesn't agree with him. But the position reflects practicality,compassion and wisdom. It could ultimately be a winning position in the general election.
What about the border fences? Doesn't his lack of enthusiasm for them prove that the Texas Governor is "soft" on illegal aliens?
Actually, he knows that they won't work! This comes from being Governor of a state that shares a 1200 mile border with Mexico. Perry is correct in that "boots on the ground," as in soldiers are needed to get the job done. Only experience in having grown-up, lived and governed such a state can true understanding of the problem be manifested. For Romney and Bachmann it might translate to good politics. Taking exception to Perry's position will always score short term points with the base. But what about the long term?
While staunch conservatives may be disappointed in Perry's position, it must be remembered that Barack Obama will not take issue with either the tuition waiver or the fence in the general election. He will position both Bachmann and Romney as anti-Hispanic. With Perry, this will be difficult it not impossible.
It is easy enough for Bachmann and Romney to question Perry's actions. But what would have they done if placed in Perry's chair? As the old Cherokee proverb went, "Don't pass judgment on another until you have walked in their moccasins for three days."
The fence conclusion is derived from experience and being there. The tuition question comes down to a decision that will always have supporters and opponents.
Bachmann is a "neo-con." In fairness, it may be impossible for a woman born in Iowa who grew up in Minnesota to truly understand the principle of states rights. She may talk about the 10th amendment. But facts are facts. Governor Perry was joined by practically all of the law makers in Texas. It is a "constitutional thing!" It never seemed to occur to Congresswoman Bachmann that this was Texas' business and Texas'call.
Governor Romney is easier to fathom. He "is a "trimmer." In other words, "he trims his sails to the political winds." Had the Republican base voiced praise for Perry's decision, he would have seconded the motion.
Texas waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. As Mitt Romney correctly underscored, it amounted to about $22,000 per year in savings for these students. "Why would Governor Perry defend such an action?"
Some have suggested that Governor Perry may be "soft" on illegal immigration. If he were not, why would he oppose the building of fences along Texas' 1200 mile border?
Interestly enough the questions mostly came from three Republican candidates from "blue states:" Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. The questions seemed fair and pertinent. Yet, in hearing Governor Perry's response, I came away with the feeling that he was attempting to educate novices on both subjects.
Let's look at the tuition question first. These students were children of illegal aliens. They were not anchor babies. They had entered the country with their parents legally. Their parents came to the country on visas that were generally education or religious in nature. The visas expired. The children meanwhile had attended and graduated from Texas public schools. They had legally applied for citizenship. Should they have been afforded exemption from out-of-state tuition? All but four of the Texas Congressmen and Senators thought so! Were they wrong? They didn't think so. Neither did Governor Perry. Almost unanamously they concluded that it was "a Texas thing." On that subject, they were 100% correct. It is a decision that should be made on the state level. They made it.
Republicans from these "blue" states often don't connect with border issues. They simply have no experience. It is likely that Michelle Bachmann knows as much about this subject as Rick Perry knows about "ice fishing for Walleye at Lake of the Woods." Romney is as familiar with the naturalization process as Perry is fluent on the joys of "polo matches at Martha's Vineyard."
True it arouses the conservative base with anti-Hispanic resentment. But this is a clear ticket to losing the general election. Neither Bachmann or Romney have connected with Latinos. Republicans must win 40% of the Hispanic vote. It is doubtful that either Bachmann or Romney can capture 20% of this crucial vote. That's why I do not think that either can defeat Barack Obama in the general election. No matter how awful the economy may be next year!
Governor Perry held his ground. In doing so he demonstrated conviction. It gets down to two things: "do the individual states have the right to make this call?" And, "are we willing to look at immigration on a case-by-case basis?" True, most of the Republican base doesn't agree with him. But the position reflects practicality,compassion and wisdom. It could ultimately be a winning position in the general election.
What about the border fences? Doesn't his lack of enthusiasm for them prove that the Texas Governor is "soft" on illegal aliens?
Actually, he knows that they won't work! This comes from being Governor of a state that shares a 1200 mile border with Mexico. Perry is correct in that "boots on the ground," as in soldiers are needed to get the job done. Only experience in having grown-up, lived and governed such a state can true understanding of the problem be manifested. For Romney and Bachmann it might translate to good politics. Taking exception to Perry's position will always score short term points with the base. But what about the long term?
While staunch conservatives may be disappointed in Perry's position, it must be remembered that Barack Obama will not take issue with either the tuition waiver or the fence in the general election. He will position both Bachmann and Romney as anti-Hispanic. With Perry, this will be difficult it not impossible.
It is easy enough for Bachmann and Romney to question Perry's actions. But what would have they done if placed in Perry's chair? As the old Cherokee proverb went, "Don't pass judgment on another until you have walked in their moccasins for three days."
The fence conclusion is derived from experience and being there. The tuition question comes down to a decision that will always have supporters and opponents.
Bachmann is a "neo-con." In fairness, it may be impossible for a woman born in Iowa who grew up in Minnesota to truly understand the principle of states rights. She may talk about the 10th amendment. But facts are facts. Governor Perry was joined by practically all of the law makers in Texas. It is a "constitutional thing!" It never seemed to occur to Congresswoman Bachmann that this was Texas' business and Texas'call.
Governor Romney is easier to fathom. He "is a "trimmer." In other words, "he trims his sails to the political winds." Had the Republican base voiced praise for Perry's decision, he would have seconded the motion.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Obama's true message.
President Barack Obama cares as much for Americas' unemployed as Adoph Hitler cared about the presevation of Jewish lives.
For those who dispute this statement answer two questions: "Why has Obamacare not been repealed?" And, "why are we moving forward with endless job killing regulations?" These regulations range from meaningless banking regulations to subjective EPA mandates that are based on theories that draw less water every day!
Obviously if the president held concern about jobs, he would immediately put the brakes on some of the most obvious regulatory initiatives. Perhaps, as Mitt Romney phrased in the September 7th debate, "he's a nice guy but he hasn't a clue."
Mitt gets an "A" for diplomacy. But it's quiet way of saying that the President of the United States is stupid. But can he honestly be that tone deaf?
The case is further made by Newt Gingrich's reminder that 69% of Alaska is owned by the Federal government. Energy is abundant and the the majority of America wants ANWAR developed. The enormous gas find in lower Cook Inlet translates to high paying jobs for the state. We certainly could use the energy. So what's the problem?
I think Barack Obama may be a lot of things. But one thing he isn't is stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing. For insight, please visit, www.agendadocumentary.com
When this chilling film is viewed, fair minded, hard working Americans find themselves becoming incensed. It is a well researched account of "dumbing down" the country and quietly advancing Socialism under the guise of "social justice" and "progressivism." This is not some conspiracy theory mind you! All of this is being done in the open. It's a must see.
It does not take an Econometrist to determine that the very regulations so proudly hailed by Obama are discourging job creation in America. As soon as we relax regulations, the jobs return to our shores. Why would Obama have a problem with this?
Obama mentioned the yearning to have that "made in America" stamp on more products. Yet, guess who occupied the seat next to Michelle Obama? Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric, the "undisputed outsource king." We must remember that Immelt has shipped endless jobs to China. He has literally moved American companies there! He has also done business with Iran. Strange bedfellows!
Obama's Thursday speech was purely political. It shrewdly sets a "trap." He is trying to bait Republicans into saying"no." In fact, odds are, he hopes that they will say "no" to everything. This will be a true test for the new elects. If they unilaterally reject every piece of Obama's jobs bill, they will look like calloused obstructionists, lacking in compassion and reason. If they accept all or most of it, they will look weak. Is there a "sweet spot?"
So much of Obama's slant was to his base. He passionately defended regulations. He vigorously supported collective bargaining. When he talked about "cheap labor" and "pollution" you knew that he was aiming his gun at Rick Perry. In other words, without these regulations, we have a dirty place to live! And right to work translates to cheap labor. Does he honestly believe this? Maybe he is "clueless," with an attitude.
Or, to put it more specifically, "a combination of impudence and impotence." Unfortunately, I think it's deeper than that...
Problem for Republicans is, it was a good speech. It might have been Obama's best speech of his career. Republicans now find themselves in a box. The best way out of it might be to agree to the payroll tax cut extension, the extension of unemployment benefits, the hiring credit for long term unemployed and a couple of the other sidebar items. If they do this, while leaving out the "meat" of the plan, they will have proven that they are willing to meet the president halfway. Going a step further, they can propose a one year moratorium on any new regulations. This will save billions. Will it be enough to cover the cost of their concessions? Probably not. And it is highly unlikely that Obama would agree to it. But, it could allow the American public to put a cost figure on regulations. It would also set Obama up for the November 2012 election.
Ironically, it was Obama's intention to do this to Republicans.
For those who dispute this statement answer two questions: "Why has Obamacare not been repealed?" And, "why are we moving forward with endless job killing regulations?" These regulations range from meaningless banking regulations to subjective EPA mandates that are based on theories that draw less water every day!
Obviously if the president held concern about jobs, he would immediately put the brakes on some of the most obvious regulatory initiatives. Perhaps, as Mitt Romney phrased in the September 7th debate, "he's a nice guy but he hasn't a clue."
Mitt gets an "A" for diplomacy. But it's quiet way of saying that the President of the United States is stupid. But can he honestly be that tone deaf?
The case is further made by Newt Gingrich's reminder that 69% of Alaska is owned by the Federal government. Energy is abundant and the the majority of America wants ANWAR developed. The enormous gas find in lower Cook Inlet translates to high paying jobs for the state. We certainly could use the energy. So what's the problem?
I think Barack Obama may be a lot of things. But one thing he isn't is stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing. For insight, please visit, www.agendadocumentary.com
When this chilling film is viewed, fair minded, hard working Americans find themselves becoming incensed. It is a well researched account of "dumbing down" the country and quietly advancing Socialism under the guise of "social justice" and "progressivism." This is not some conspiracy theory mind you! All of this is being done in the open. It's a must see.
It does not take an Econometrist to determine that the very regulations so proudly hailed by Obama are discourging job creation in America. As soon as we relax regulations, the jobs return to our shores. Why would Obama have a problem with this?
Obama mentioned the yearning to have that "made in America" stamp on more products. Yet, guess who occupied the seat next to Michelle Obama? Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric, the "undisputed outsource king." We must remember that Immelt has shipped endless jobs to China. He has literally moved American companies there! He has also done business with Iran. Strange bedfellows!
Obama's Thursday speech was purely political. It shrewdly sets a "trap." He is trying to bait Republicans into saying"no." In fact, odds are, he hopes that they will say "no" to everything. This will be a true test for the new elects. If they unilaterally reject every piece of Obama's jobs bill, they will look like calloused obstructionists, lacking in compassion and reason. If they accept all or most of it, they will look weak. Is there a "sweet spot?"
So much of Obama's slant was to his base. He passionately defended regulations. He vigorously supported collective bargaining. When he talked about "cheap labor" and "pollution" you knew that he was aiming his gun at Rick Perry. In other words, without these regulations, we have a dirty place to live! And right to work translates to cheap labor. Does he honestly believe this? Maybe he is "clueless," with an attitude.
Or, to put it more specifically, "a combination of impudence and impotence." Unfortunately, I think it's deeper than that...
Problem for Republicans is, it was a good speech. It might have been Obama's best speech of his career. Republicans now find themselves in a box. The best way out of it might be to agree to the payroll tax cut extension, the extension of unemployment benefits, the hiring credit for long term unemployed and a couple of the other sidebar items. If they do this, while leaving out the "meat" of the plan, they will have proven that they are willing to meet the president halfway. Going a step further, they can propose a one year moratorium on any new regulations. This will save billions. Will it be enough to cover the cost of their concessions? Probably not. And it is highly unlikely that Obama would agree to it. But, it could allow the American public to put a cost figure on regulations. It would also set Obama up for the November 2012 election.
Ironically, it was Obama's intention to do this to Republicans.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
RINO Reality
It was May 2006 in Miami Florida. A citizens forum was concluding. The topic: Coping with excessively high property taxes.
Gloria Alvarez(not her real name)had finished the two-hour session with a painful confession: She had sold her engagement ring to help cover the $7100 property tax bill. When she explained that her middle class home had drawn an assessment of $301,500, gasps were plainly heard in the audience.
A minor government official exclaimed, "I feel your frustration." Then she added that if taxes were not collected, city and county officials would be forced to take wage and benefit cuts. Furthermore, basic services such as garbage collection would go unfunded.
Another voice pointed out that their neighbor's property tax tab was "less than one-third" of their own. The official gamely suggested that the neighbor had likely lived there longer and had better taken advantage of "Save Our Homes," the Florida property tax law which places a cap on increases year-to-year.
2006 became 2007. First, Governor Charlie Crist proposed a plan that doubled the basic homestead exemption(from $25,000 to $50,000) and extended "portability" to homeowners. This allowed homeowners to move, taking their "save our homes" credit with them. In other words, if you had originally purchased your home for $150,000 and it now was assessed at $250,000, you would still pay your property taxes based on the original purchase amount, less the exemption, plus 3% annual increase. It was complicated and drew notable criticism. Those opposed pointed out that it "perpetuated an inequitable system."
Then House Speaker, Marco Rubio proposed an alternative. "Let's raise the sales tax 2.5% on everything except food and medicine and eliminate the property tax for homesteaders," he proffered. In Rubio fashion, the plan was straight forward and easy to understand. His argument was simple: "20% of sales tax is paid by tourists, 5% is paid by undocumented workers."
Realtors and bankers got excited. So did Florida residents. True, the exemption would apply only to Florida residents. And, it would apply only to their actual residence. Second homes, investment property, commercial property would not be affected. Rubio's argument cut to the quick: "We cannot tax people out of their homes. If people want to buy a car or a flat screen TV, they will pay more sales tax. But we will not allow government to force people on fixed incomes to move."
Opponents were quick to say, "the money doesn't add up." Rubio defended his plan by admitting that "any shortfalls will be made up with cuts in salaries and benefits for government employees." Then he went down the list of lavish salaries, perks, expenses and benefits received by city and county employees. The public became outraged. He also identified a little known fact: ten cents of every dollar paid into the state coffers was used to hire lobbyists. The public became even more incensed.
Rubio's "tax swap" flew through the Florida House of Representitives. With a Senate also controlled by Republicans, a Republican Governor and 75% of the population in favor of the plan, passage looked imminent. Instead, the Senate submitted a different plan. This "alternative" was given full blessing by Senate President, Ken Pruitt. It offered nothing close to the relief that Rubio had proposed. In fact, the reduction amounted to practically nothing. At best it was "token" relief. It was as if the "pain" had fallen on deaf ears! What had happened?
Ken Pruitt and many of his Senate co-horts were R.I.N.O.S.- Republicans in Name Only. They had looked at Rubio's plan, considered it a consumption tax, a "regressive tax" and dismissed it. Never mind that three-fourths of Floridians favored it! Pruitt and his pals knew best. They were very comfortable working with Senate Democrats to conceive a "bi-partisan" plan. House members, typically 10-years younger than Senate members were mystified. Why were they so willing to scrap a plan that attacked the problem so decisively? Did they not feel the pain of the homeowners? Did they not understand that people were being taxed out of their homes unjustly?
Evidently they didn't. In their estimation, it was too much lost revenue for government. There was concern that schools would be underfunded. Basic services might need to be cut. Cost of living increases for city and county employees would not be met. There was a worry that pension benefits might be compromised. The idea of pay freezes for city and county workers was considered "draconian."
Rubio and supporters acknowledged that "these arguments they had expected; from Democrats!" But who were these Republicans? And were they real Republicans? Recognizing the stalemate, Governor Crist eased his plan through the House and Senate. It allowed homeowners to move without forfeiting their "save our homes" accrual. It offered only token help to most Floridians. It did not prevent the Florida housing meltdown.
In retrospect, we now know that had Rubio's plan been adopted, many homeowners would have averted foreclosure. At the time of proposal, the Governor called the Rubio plan "intriguing." During the Senate campaign he called it "wacky."
Rubio should be credited for drawing clear distinction between real Republicans and RINOS. Never calling Crist by name, he constantly referred to him as "the Arlen Specter wing of the Republican party." Yet when it came down to it, GOP national sent Charlie Crist five million dollars.
Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander and the brass suggested to now Senator Rubio that he "run for Attorney General." They were only interested in holding the seat. Making certain that their choice truly reflected conservative values was secondary. Charlie Crist looked more electable. Were they ever wrong! Perhaps both men had been inside the beltway too long. They were blindsided by a reality. Not the conventional "RINO Reality!" Voters want leaders who stand for something!
This reality is new and much more powerful. It is a wind that is blowing in America. It is saying, "we are on to you guys!" No more, "Republicrats and Democans." Take a position! We need no more "trimmers!"
Today, you hear John Huntsman talking about appealing to a broader base of people through more moderate views. Is he talking about moderation? Or is he doing a Ken Pruitt? As in attempting to "out Democrat the Democrats."
"Broadening the tent" has been on the lips of Republican leaders for years. But how do you "broaden the tent?" To a John Huntsman type, it means that you "find middle ground with moderate Democrats in route to bi-partisanship." But is this the only way?
Many low income independents and "blue collar" Democrats see a different path toward "increasing the size of the tent." It's called "reducing the size and cost of government." To a family of four with a household income of $40,000, Rubio's plan would have meant a savings of roughly $4000 per year. This was based on the assumption that they owned a modest home in a lower middle class neighborhood. Could they have lived without some services? Probably. Were they concerned about pension and benefit cuts for city and county employees? Absolutely not! In the eyes of these voters, city and county employees were earning 50% more than they were; while enjoying superior benefits.
Many members of the party hierarchy stress that the party must not "lean to far to the right." But what is "too far to the right." Does that translate to "lean too far from the norm?"When we discuss "reducing the size and cost of government," we are talking change. To pigeonhole this change as "right wing" may be a distortion. Low income independents coming from households that earn $30,000 per year, do not consider eliminating the EPA "far right" if it results in a $22 per hour job on a gas well. A family farmer aspiring to start a cannery does not consider restricting FDA "right wing" if it means that he can proceed without government interference.
Allowing Americans to keep their own money has been demonized. It is, as if, government has a divine right to live better, control more and ultimately oversee the lives of the American people. It goes back to a culture of "government knowing best." To counter this, Republicans must identify the "wolves in sheep skin." If they are counter to the philosophy of"reducing the size and scope of government," they are not our friend. It makes little sense to waste time, and money on them.
Gloria Alvarez(not her real name)had finished the two-hour session with a painful confession: She had sold her engagement ring to help cover the $7100 property tax bill. When she explained that her middle class home had drawn an assessment of $301,500, gasps were plainly heard in the audience.
A minor government official exclaimed, "I feel your frustration." Then she added that if taxes were not collected, city and county officials would be forced to take wage and benefit cuts. Furthermore, basic services such as garbage collection would go unfunded.
Another voice pointed out that their neighbor's property tax tab was "less than one-third" of their own. The official gamely suggested that the neighbor had likely lived there longer and had better taken advantage of "Save Our Homes," the Florida property tax law which places a cap on increases year-to-year.
2006 became 2007. First, Governor Charlie Crist proposed a plan that doubled the basic homestead exemption(from $25,000 to $50,000) and extended "portability" to homeowners. This allowed homeowners to move, taking their "save our homes" credit with them. In other words, if you had originally purchased your home for $150,000 and it now was assessed at $250,000, you would still pay your property taxes based on the original purchase amount, less the exemption, plus 3% annual increase. It was complicated and drew notable criticism. Those opposed pointed out that it "perpetuated an inequitable system."
Then House Speaker, Marco Rubio proposed an alternative. "Let's raise the sales tax 2.5% on everything except food and medicine and eliminate the property tax for homesteaders," he proffered. In Rubio fashion, the plan was straight forward and easy to understand. His argument was simple: "20% of sales tax is paid by tourists, 5% is paid by undocumented workers."
Realtors and bankers got excited. So did Florida residents. True, the exemption would apply only to Florida residents. And, it would apply only to their actual residence. Second homes, investment property, commercial property would not be affected. Rubio's argument cut to the quick: "We cannot tax people out of their homes. If people want to buy a car or a flat screen TV, they will pay more sales tax. But we will not allow government to force people on fixed incomes to move."
Opponents were quick to say, "the money doesn't add up." Rubio defended his plan by admitting that "any shortfalls will be made up with cuts in salaries and benefits for government employees." Then he went down the list of lavish salaries, perks, expenses and benefits received by city and county employees. The public became outraged. He also identified a little known fact: ten cents of every dollar paid into the state coffers was used to hire lobbyists. The public became even more incensed.
Rubio's "tax swap" flew through the Florida House of Representitives. With a Senate also controlled by Republicans, a Republican Governor and 75% of the population in favor of the plan, passage looked imminent. Instead, the Senate submitted a different plan. This "alternative" was given full blessing by Senate President, Ken Pruitt. It offered nothing close to the relief that Rubio had proposed. In fact, the reduction amounted to practically nothing. At best it was "token" relief. It was as if the "pain" had fallen on deaf ears! What had happened?
Ken Pruitt and many of his Senate co-horts were R.I.N.O.S.- Republicans in Name Only. They had looked at Rubio's plan, considered it a consumption tax, a "regressive tax" and dismissed it. Never mind that three-fourths of Floridians favored it! Pruitt and his pals knew best. They were very comfortable working with Senate Democrats to conceive a "bi-partisan" plan. House members, typically 10-years younger than Senate members were mystified. Why were they so willing to scrap a plan that attacked the problem so decisively? Did they not feel the pain of the homeowners? Did they not understand that people were being taxed out of their homes unjustly?
Evidently they didn't. In their estimation, it was too much lost revenue for government. There was concern that schools would be underfunded. Basic services might need to be cut. Cost of living increases for city and county employees would not be met. There was a worry that pension benefits might be compromised. The idea of pay freezes for city and county workers was considered "draconian."
Rubio and supporters acknowledged that "these arguments they had expected; from Democrats!" But who were these Republicans? And were they real Republicans? Recognizing the stalemate, Governor Crist eased his plan through the House and Senate. It allowed homeowners to move without forfeiting their "save our homes" accrual. It offered only token help to most Floridians. It did not prevent the Florida housing meltdown.
In retrospect, we now know that had Rubio's plan been adopted, many homeowners would have averted foreclosure. At the time of proposal, the Governor called the Rubio plan "intriguing." During the Senate campaign he called it "wacky."
Rubio should be credited for drawing clear distinction between real Republicans and RINOS. Never calling Crist by name, he constantly referred to him as "the Arlen Specter wing of the Republican party." Yet when it came down to it, GOP national sent Charlie Crist five million dollars.
Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander and the brass suggested to now Senator Rubio that he "run for Attorney General." They were only interested in holding the seat. Making certain that their choice truly reflected conservative values was secondary. Charlie Crist looked more electable. Were they ever wrong! Perhaps both men had been inside the beltway too long. They were blindsided by a reality. Not the conventional "RINO Reality!" Voters want leaders who stand for something!
This reality is new and much more powerful. It is a wind that is blowing in America. It is saying, "we are on to you guys!" No more, "Republicrats and Democans." Take a position! We need no more "trimmers!"
Today, you hear John Huntsman talking about appealing to a broader base of people through more moderate views. Is he talking about moderation? Or is he doing a Ken Pruitt? As in attempting to "out Democrat the Democrats."
"Broadening the tent" has been on the lips of Republican leaders for years. But how do you "broaden the tent?" To a John Huntsman type, it means that you "find middle ground with moderate Democrats in route to bi-partisanship." But is this the only way?
Many low income independents and "blue collar" Democrats see a different path toward "increasing the size of the tent." It's called "reducing the size and cost of government." To a family of four with a household income of $40,000, Rubio's plan would have meant a savings of roughly $4000 per year. This was based on the assumption that they owned a modest home in a lower middle class neighborhood. Could they have lived without some services? Probably. Were they concerned about pension and benefit cuts for city and county employees? Absolutely not! In the eyes of these voters, city and county employees were earning 50% more than they were; while enjoying superior benefits.
Many members of the party hierarchy stress that the party must not "lean to far to the right." But what is "too far to the right." Does that translate to "lean too far from the norm?"When we discuss "reducing the size and cost of government," we are talking change. To pigeonhole this change as "right wing" may be a distortion. Low income independents coming from households that earn $30,000 per year, do not consider eliminating the EPA "far right" if it results in a $22 per hour job on a gas well. A family farmer aspiring to start a cannery does not consider restricting FDA "right wing" if it means that he can proceed without government interference.
Allowing Americans to keep their own money has been demonized. It is, as if, government has a divine right to live better, control more and ultimately oversee the lives of the American people. It goes back to a culture of "government knowing best." To counter this, Republicans must identify the "wolves in sheep skin." If they are counter to the philosophy of"reducing the size and scope of government," they are not our friend. It makes little sense to waste time, and money on them.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The Rove Rankle-What's truly at stake
Karl Rove is a smart guy. He has proven beyond question to be one of the premiere political minds in America. Yet, somehow, there are "winds of a cross directional nature" blowing. Perhaps it merits a closer look.
I am not referring to "American Crossroads, the 527 organization that the Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff served as an advisor to. This is deeper. We're talking about a battle for the soul of the Republican party.
Such confrontation was predictable. It has been brewing for the past 35 years. In 1976 Ronald Reagan challenged seated President, Gerald Ford on several questions. Ford's brand of Republicanism was decidedly more centrist. Reagan opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, advocated Supply Side Economics, took a "hawkish" world view and proposed the largest tax cut in American history. Ford won narrowly. But the seed had been planted. Especially the thought that "Keynesian" economic theory might not be the only way.
George Herbert Walker Bush was Reagan's 1980 opponent. It was in the New Hampshire primary that the term "Trilateral Commission" entered the dialogue. Bush had won the Iowa primary. In New Hampshire, Reagan handed out literature revealing Bush's membership in this secretive, globalist organization. He won the primary handily and went on to gain the nomination.
Did the thought of a "Trilaterial Commission" gain much traction with the American public? Probably not! When Reagan asked Bush to be his running mate, the entire episode was buried along with Bush's claim that Reagan's "Plan for Economic Recovery" was "voodoo economics." They served eight years together in complementary fashion. When Reagan left office. Bush was the ready successor.
After Bush's 1992 defeat, the Republican Congressional takeover in 1994 and the 2000 election, the party appeared as united as ever. George W. Bush was clearly to the "right" of John McCain. Karl Rove was seen as the mastermind of Republican strategy.
Things soured in 2006. Two wars, an unfunded Medicare bill and mounting debt created concern. The financial meltdown killed any chance that John McCain had to win the 2008 election. Not that Republicans were enthusiastic with his candidacy! It was "his turn" to be the nominee. Reagan Republicans likened him to "a conservative Democrat." The appropriate label, "Republican in name only(R.I.N.O.)" was year or so away from conception.
Barack Obama swept into office amidst hopeful rhetoric and a 1970's style spending and regulation agenda. The Tea Party emerged and with it an Optometrist from Kentucky with a fitting description of conservatives.
George W. Bush, who ran under a banner of "compassinate conservative" was labeled a "Neo Conservative." The Kentucky Optometrist, now Senator Rand Paul described himself as a "Constititional Conservative." Suddenly, this long subdued split in the Republican Party had names!
Paul's book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington" described "Neo Conservatives" as favoring a large central Washington based government to facilitate conservative principles. The "Constitutional Conservatives" aspired to take a more "strict constructionist" view of the constitution in general. This translated to smaller Washington based government and less spending, coupled with more fiscal responsibility.
The media readily engaged in the discussion. They referred to the "Neo Cons" as the "Republican Establishment." Paul's "Tea Party Republicans" were positioned as "extreme" and "out of the mainstream." But they made their presence felt! In Kentucky, Paul hammered Establishment preference, Trey Grayson in the primary. His 56-44% finish against Democrat, Jack Conway in the general election showed that much of his support had come from Democrats. In Florida Marco Rubio routed Establishment choice, Charlie Crist, despite Crist's receipt of five million dollars from Republican National!
Professional to the end, Rove stayed low keyed on both races. But his frustration came out with GOP nomination of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware's primary. Rove, surprisingly became unglued. He make it clear the night of O'Donnell's victory that national support would be withdrawn and focused on winnable races. Was he correct? Probably! But, the mere fact that he was unwilling to spend any more time and energy on Delaware raised eyebrows of previously solid "Karl Rove advocates!"
Did Rove not recognize that Congressman Mike Castle was soundly beaten? Did it not occur to him why? Chances are he was only focused on retaking the Senate. Maybe he categorized O'Donnell as a "Plebeian." Rove had to reason, based on the election outcome, that a "R.I.N.O." simply wasn't good enough for Delaware Republicans! Castle had voted for T.A.R.P. and "Cap and Trade." Constitutionalists reminded everyone of these votes! In the end, the verdict read "what's the point of beating the Democrat if your candidate is only marginally different?" Republicans in Delaware wanted more than "a win on paper." Unlike Rove, they were doing more than counting Senate seats!
Rove's support of Kaye Baily Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Governatorial race was a clear indication of his preference for Establishment candidates. And yet, his association with Governor Rick Perry goes back further than 2010. As most are learning, it was Rove who advised Perry to switch parties in 1988. Perry, a two-term Democrat in the Texas House of Representitives had been chairman of Al Gore's 1988 Presidential election bid. He switched to the Republican Party and defeated incumbant, Jim Hightower in a tight race. After Perry's successful two-term stint as Texas' Commissioner of Agriculture, some differences evidently arose regarding Perry's campaign strategy in the 1998 Lt. Governor's race.
A famous quote taken in Iowa in 2008 may have provided an additional spark. Regarding the explosion in Washington spending, Perry told Hawkeye Republicans, that "George(President Bush)isn't a fiscal conservative, never was." This didn't go over well with any of the Bush Camp. It was surprising to see Dick Cheney, James Baker and even Bush the Elder go public with their endorsement of Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas governors race. Equally emazing was the drubbing Hutchinson took from Perry. The broad differences between "Constitutional Conservatives" and "Neo Cons" were manifested. And where did Rove fit in? He was right there with Karen Hughes, Margaret Spellings and the rest of the gang! It demonstrated that the mantle had been passed, albeit not intentionally!
Can the "rankle" not be repaired? The Republican opponent in November 2012 will be Barack Obama. There is growing belief that Rick Perry is not "Rove's type of Republican." After all, the Texas Governor did not attend an Ivy League School. While he may have attended a CFR convention or two, he is not currently a member of one of the globalist secret societies such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bush the Elder, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. In fact, if he were elected President, he would be the first non-Ivy Leaguer to serve in the White House since Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps this is part of the "rankle." While Perry has enjoyed success in Texas, he may not be what elites consider "Americas ruling class." Unlike Mitt Romney, Al Gore,or George W. Bush, Perry's father was not a President, Senator or Governor.(Remember Clinton and Obama grew up in fatherless households, making them victims) Nor, did he attend Harvard or Yale like Gore, Romney, the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama.
It's refreshing to view Perry's college transcript from Texas A & M. He might not have made "all A's!" But it showed that he took serious courses like "Organic Chemistry" and went through the same impersonal woes expected in a large public institution. Some might consider this inferior to the high profile polish and pedigree offered by expensive Ivy League institutions. But he did gain priceless exposure to mainstream people! In essence, he attended college with the poor as well as the privileged. He might actually be able to relate to issues that "average Joe's" deal with daily!
It could come down to Rove's instinct for picking winning Republican candidates. He knows the game! But, the game may be changing. The sun is setting on the traditional Dewey-Rockefeller Republican. It took a Tea Party Senator to put a name on it but now, the "cat is out of the bag." Nobody wants to talk about a "safe" candidate who will attract Independents and moderate Democrats. Not if it means compromising the new standard in favor of the old!
Karl Rove and countless Establishment Republicans may gravitate to the "old school." With all his flaws, Mitt Romney still looks like a "safe bet." But, what is "safe?" If it translates to "giving in" to the old guard one more time, there may be few takers!
These "new" Republicans threaten the standard. When the 10th amendment enters any discussion, the ideological difference between "Constitutionalists" and "Neo Cons" is never more apparent. It started with Education. George W. Bush sponsored "No Child Left Behind." It was a noble effort to improve educational performance and accountability nationwide. The intentions were honorable. Democrats embraced the legislation. The spirit of "bi-partisanship" glowed. But, the "constitutionalists" were quick to say, "this is federal overreach."
A renowned political strategist such as Karl Rove might suggest that "the country is not ready for that kind of thinking. It might ultimately prove to be detrimental to the Republican party." But is he certain? Is anyone certain?
I am not referring to "American Crossroads, the 527 organization that the Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff served as an advisor to. This is deeper. We're talking about a battle for the soul of the Republican party.
Such confrontation was predictable. It has been brewing for the past 35 years. In 1976 Ronald Reagan challenged seated President, Gerald Ford on several questions. Ford's brand of Republicanism was decidedly more centrist. Reagan opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, advocated Supply Side Economics, took a "hawkish" world view and proposed the largest tax cut in American history. Ford won narrowly. But the seed had been planted. Especially the thought that "Keynesian" economic theory might not be the only way.
George Herbert Walker Bush was Reagan's 1980 opponent. It was in the New Hampshire primary that the term "Trilateral Commission" entered the dialogue. Bush had won the Iowa primary. In New Hampshire, Reagan handed out literature revealing Bush's membership in this secretive, globalist organization. He won the primary handily and went on to gain the nomination.
Did the thought of a "Trilaterial Commission" gain much traction with the American public? Probably not! When Reagan asked Bush to be his running mate, the entire episode was buried along with Bush's claim that Reagan's "Plan for Economic Recovery" was "voodoo economics." They served eight years together in complementary fashion. When Reagan left office. Bush was the ready successor.
After Bush's 1992 defeat, the Republican Congressional takeover in 1994 and the 2000 election, the party appeared as united as ever. George W. Bush was clearly to the "right" of John McCain. Karl Rove was seen as the mastermind of Republican strategy.
Things soured in 2006. Two wars, an unfunded Medicare bill and mounting debt created concern. The financial meltdown killed any chance that John McCain had to win the 2008 election. Not that Republicans were enthusiastic with his candidacy! It was "his turn" to be the nominee. Reagan Republicans likened him to "a conservative Democrat." The appropriate label, "Republican in name only(R.I.N.O.)" was year or so away from conception.
Barack Obama swept into office amidst hopeful rhetoric and a 1970's style spending and regulation agenda. The Tea Party emerged and with it an Optometrist from Kentucky with a fitting description of conservatives.
George W. Bush, who ran under a banner of "compassinate conservative" was labeled a "Neo Conservative." The Kentucky Optometrist, now Senator Rand Paul described himself as a "Constititional Conservative." Suddenly, this long subdued split in the Republican Party had names!
Paul's book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington" described "Neo Conservatives" as favoring a large central Washington based government to facilitate conservative principles. The "Constitutional Conservatives" aspired to take a more "strict constructionist" view of the constitution in general. This translated to smaller Washington based government and less spending, coupled with more fiscal responsibility.
The media readily engaged in the discussion. They referred to the "Neo Cons" as the "Republican Establishment." Paul's "Tea Party Republicans" were positioned as "extreme" and "out of the mainstream." But they made their presence felt! In Kentucky, Paul hammered Establishment preference, Trey Grayson in the primary. His 56-44% finish against Democrat, Jack Conway in the general election showed that much of his support had come from Democrats. In Florida Marco Rubio routed Establishment choice, Charlie Crist, despite Crist's receipt of five million dollars from Republican National!
Professional to the end, Rove stayed low keyed on both races. But his frustration came out with GOP nomination of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware's primary. Rove, surprisingly became unglued. He make it clear the night of O'Donnell's victory that national support would be withdrawn and focused on winnable races. Was he correct? Probably! But, the mere fact that he was unwilling to spend any more time and energy on Delaware raised eyebrows of previously solid "Karl Rove advocates!"
Did Rove not recognize that Congressman Mike Castle was soundly beaten? Did it not occur to him why? Chances are he was only focused on retaking the Senate. Maybe he categorized O'Donnell as a "Plebeian." Rove had to reason, based on the election outcome, that a "R.I.N.O." simply wasn't good enough for Delaware Republicans! Castle had voted for T.A.R.P. and "Cap and Trade." Constitutionalists reminded everyone of these votes! In the end, the verdict read "what's the point of beating the Democrat if your candidate is only marginally different?" Republicans in Delaware wanted more than "a win on paper." Unlike Rove, they were doing more than counting Senate seats!
Rove's support of Kaye Baily Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Governatorial race was a clear indication of his preference for Establishment candidates. And yet, his association with Governor Rick Perry goes back further than 2010. As most are learning, it was Rove who advised Perry to switch parties in 1988. Perry, a two-term Democrat in the Texas House of Representitives had been chairman of Al Gore's 1988 Presidential election bid. He switched to the Republican Party and defeated incumbant, Jim Hightower in a tight race. After Perry's successful two-term stint as Texas' Commissioner of Agriculture, some differences evidently arose regarding Perry's campaign strategy in the 1998 Lt. Governor's race.
A famous quote taken in Iowa in 2008 may have provided an additional spark. Regarding the explosion in Washington spending, Perry told Hawkeye Republicans, that "George(President Bush)isn't a fiscal conservative, never was." This didn't go over well with any of the Bush Camp. It was surprising to see Dick Cheney, James Baker and even Bush the Elder go public with their endorsement of Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas governors race. Equally emazing was the drubbing Hutchinson took from Perry. The broad differences between "Constitutional Conservatives" and "Neo Cons" were manifested. And where did Rove fit in? He was right there with Karen Hughes, Margaret Spellings and the rest of the gang! It demonstrated that the mantle had been passed, albeit not intentionally!
Can the "rankle" not be repaired? The Republican opponent in November 2012 will be Barack Obama. There is growing belief that Rick Perry is not "Rove's type of Republican." After all, the Texas Governor did not attend an Ivy League School. While he may have attended a CFR convention or two, he is not currently a member of one of the globalist secret societies such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bush the Elder, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. In fact, if he were elected President, he would be the first non-Ivy Leaguer to serve in the White House since Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps this is part of the "rankle." While Perry has enjoyed success in Texas, he may not be what elites consider "Americas ruling class." Unlike Mitt Romney, Al Gore,or George W. Bush, Perry's father was not a President, Senator or Governor.(Remember Clinton and Obama grew up in fatherless households, making them victims) Nor, did he attend Harvard or Yale like Gore, Romney, the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama.
It's refreshing to view Perry's college transcript from Texas A & M. He might not have made "all A's!" But it showed that he took serious courses like "Organic Chemistry" and went through the same impersonal woes expected in a large public institution. Some might consider this inferior to the high profile polish and pedigree offered by expensive Ivy League institutions. But he did gain priceless exposure to mainstream people! In essence, he attended college with the poor as well as the privileged. He might actually be able to relate to issues that "average Joe's" deal with daily!
It could come down to Rove's instinct for picking winning Republican candidates. He knows the game! But, the game may be changing. The sun is setting on the traditional Dewey-Rockefeller Republican. It took a Tea Party Senator to put a name on it but now, the "cat is out of the bag." Nobody wants to talk about a "safe" candidate who will attract Independents and moderate Democrats. Not if it means compromising the new standard in favor of the old!
Karl Rove and countless Establishment Republicans may gravitate to the "old school." With all his flaws, Mitt Romney still looks like a "safe bet." But, what is "safe?" If it translates to "giving in" to the old guard one more time, there may be few takers!
These "new" Republicans threaten the standard. When the 10th amendment enters any discussion, the ideological difference between "Constitutionalists" and "Neo Cons" is never more apparent. It started with Education. George W. Bush sponsored "No Child Left Behind." It was a noble effort to improve educational performance and accountability nationwide. The intentions were honorable. Democrats embraced the legislation. The spirit of "bi-partisanship" glowed. But, the "constitutionalists" were quick to say, "this is federal overreach."
A renowned political strategist such as Karl Rove might suggest that "the country is not ready for that kind of thinking. It might ultimately prove to be detrimental to the Republican party." But is he certain? Is anyone certain?
Saturday, July 30, 2011
"More from Forgotten America; how they truly rank."
Rory(not his real name), my yard man, was loading equipment into his truck when he referenced an affliction that was causing him to go blind in one eye. Ruefully, he acknowedged that he had no insurance and no money to pay doctor and hospital the $5700 needed for corrective surgery.
When I asked him if he had applied for Medicaid, he said "yes." He went on to mention that his wife's health had forced the couple to pay $400 per month to cover the premiums required to maintain her necessary treatment and medication. He admitted that he "wasn't complaining;" except that there were day workers like himself who "received anything they wanted for free." The problem was they were not in the country legally. "Somehow," Rory mused, "that ain't right!"
He was referring to one of the side affects of Phyler versus Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court ruling. Phyler versus Doe ultimately extended entitlements to illegal aliens. In the proposed "American English Unification Amendment" ("E" Amendment) introduced in "E" is for English, Phyler versus Doe would be superceded.
How much is America spending to facilitate this Supreme Court ruling? Studies should reveal much more than most Americans could possibly imagine! With Congress in gridlock over budget cuts, it's truly amazing that this variable has not surfaced. Perhaps it's because nobody wants to talk about it!
Certainly, both Republicans and Democrats are willing to discuss Rory's woes. Democrats conclude that the solution is universal health care. In the eyes of Barack Obama, his "new health care legislation" should answer the question and then some. But will it? As Rory admitted, "I see people drawing disability checks driving around in expensive cars, living in nice homes. Somehow, they're getting paid. But I also know people who don't have enough to eat and are getting $12 per month in food stamps! That's it! I'm talking about people, American people who have worked all their lives and paid into the system."
Republicans point to one measure that would have some tangible result. By allowing all 1300 health insurance companies to cross state lines, the prices for health insurance would logically come down. As Florida Senator, Marco Rubio asked, "what if you could buy your car insurance only from State Farm, Alstate and Shelter?" A guy with a 10th grade education like Rory could figure that one out! "Our car insurance rates would skyrocket!" he laughs. "But why can't we do that with health insurance?" Great question!
Guys like Rory(and a lot of other Americans) would like to know "why" illegal aliens can have free health insurance, food stamps, low income housing, A.F.D.C and other entitlements when 43 million people have no health insurance and are limited to minimal amounts of entitlements? Would guys like Rory be in favor of the "E" Amendment? What about more affluent people? Do they feel that it is their obligation to house, feed and provide medical care for people unlawfully in the country?
Cynics would conclude that the President would never press the issue. After all, he wants to "grant them amnesty so that they will become new Democrat voters." In fairness, we cannot think that lowly of President Obama. Especially since Republicans are also "keeping mum" on the subject!
Maybe it's because to do so would be politically incorrect. Most of the media would demonize any politician who dared suggest that we "stop taking care of children." They would ridicule any political leader who supported "starving illegals into self deportation." Had Speaker Boehner included such a measure in his deficit reduction package, guys like Chris Mathews would have referred to him as having "a heart of a thousand fiends."
Returning to Rory. How would passing the "E" Amendment help him save the sight in his eye? For starters, we would have more to invest in "forgotten America." Most Americans agree. Charity begins at home! We need to turn our attention to people living legally in the country.
It might not happen immediately. But with other practical measures such as allowing unrestricted competition for medical providers and "tort reform" we would be on the path toward a solution. It's a start in the right direction.
Democrats believe that they have accomplished this very notion. They are inflicting "mental morphine" into the psyches! "Reducing health care costs for all" was not accomplished by the new legislation. In fact it does the opposite! Everyones costs are heading up, including those of Medicare recipients. "Disaffecteds," members of forgotten America such as Rory, were completely left out.
So who did benefit? People with pre-existing conditions. 26 year-olds living with their parents? Some union members? Sounds like a handful of people benefited at the expense of the rest us! Worse still, illegals receiving medicare and medicaid were never mentioned!
Imagine building a road across a grassy meadow. What happens if you begin pouring asphalt immediately on the grass? Without prep work? The end result is "a mess." You have built something unsustainable.Get the picture!
Hardworking survivors like Rory aren't asking for universal healthcare. In fact, they aren't looking for a "handout," or even a "hand." The bare essentials are accepted with a mild degree of shame and embarrasment. But only as a last resort! These are self reliant, proudly independent Americans. They only ask to be remembered.
When I asked him if he had applied for Medicaid, he said "yes." He went on to mention that his wife's health had forced the couple to pay $400 per month to cover the premiums required to maintain her necessary treatment and medication. He admitted that he "wasn't complaining;" except that there were day workers like himself who "received anything they wanted for free." The problem was they were not in the country legally. "Somehow," Rory mused, "that ain't right!"
He was referring to one of the side affects of Phyler versus Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court ruling. Phyler versus Doe ultimately extended entitlements to illegal aliens. In the proposed "American English Unification Amendment" ("E" Amendment) introduced in "E" is for English, Phyler versus Doe would be superceded.
How much is America spending to facilitate this Supreme Court ruling? Studies should reveal much more than most Americans could possibly imagine! With Congress in gridlock over budget cuts, it's truly amazing that this variable has not surfaced. Perhaps it's because nobody wants to talk about it!
Certainly, both Republicans and Democrats are willing to discuss Rory's woes. Democrats conclude that the solution is universal health care. In the eyes of Barack Obama, his "new health care legislation" should answer the question and then some. But will it? As Rory admitted, "I see people drawing disability checks driving around in expensive cars, living in nice homes. Somehow, they're getting paid. But I also know people who don't have enough to eat and are getting $12 per month in food stamps! That's it! I'm talking about people, American people who have worked all their lives and paid into the system."
Republicans point to one measure that would have some tangible result. By allowing all 1300 health insurance companies to cross state lines, the prices for health insurance would logically come down. As Florida Senator, Marco Rubio asked, "what if you could buy your car insurance only from State Farm, Alstate and Shelter?" A guy with a 10th grade education like Rory could figure that one out! "Our car insurance rates would skyrocket!" he laughs. "But why can't we do that with health insurance?" Great question!
Guys like Rory(and a lot of other Americans) would like to know "why" illegal aliens can have free health insurance, food stamps, low income housing, A.F.D.C and other entitlements when 43 million people have no health insurance and are limited to minimal amounts of entitlements? Would guys like Rory be in favor of the "E" Amendment? What about more affluent people? Do they feel that it is their obligation to house, feed and provide medical care for people unlawfully in the country?
Cynics would conclude that the President would never press the issue. After all, he wants to "grant them amnesty so that they will become new Democrat voters." In fairness, we cannot think that lowly of President Obama. Especially since Republicans are also "keeping mum" on the subject!
Maybe it's because to do so would be politically incorrect. Most of the media would demonize any politician who dared suggest that we "stop taking care of children." They would ridicule any political leader who supported "starving illegals into self deportation." Had Speaker Boehner included such a measure in his deficit reduction package, guys like Chris Mathews would have referred to him as having "a heart of a thousand fiends."
Returning to Rory. How would passing the "E" Amendment help him save the sight in his eye? For starters, we would have more to invest in "forgotten America." Most Americans agree. Charity begins at home! We need to turn our attention to people living legally in the country.
It might not happen immediately. But with other practical measures such as allowing unrestricted competition for medical providers and "tort reform" we would be on the path toward a solution. It's a start in the right direction.
Democrats believe that they have accomplished this very notion. They are inflicting "mental morphine" into the psyches! "Reducing health care costs for all" was not accomplished by the new legislation. In fact it does the opposite! Everyones costs are heading up, including those of Medicare recipients. "Disaffecteds," members of forgotten America such as Rory, were completely left out.
So who did benefit? People with pre-existing conditions. 26 year-olds living with their parents? Some union members? Sounds like a handful of people benefited at the expense of the rest us! Worse still, illegals receiving medicare and medicaid were never mentioned!
Imagine building a road across a grassy meadow. What happens if you begin pouring asphalt immediately on the grass? Without prep work? The end result is "a mess." You have built something unsustainable.Get the picture!
Hardworking survivors like Rory aren't asking for universal healthcare. In fact, they aren't looking for a "handout," or even a "hand." The bare essentials are accepted with a mild degree of shame and embarrasment. But only as a last resort! These are self reliant, proudly independent Americans. They only ask to be remembered.
Friday, July 22, 2011
"Punching the Winning Ticket"
Republicans are in universal agreement on one thing: "They want to make Barack Obama a one-term President."
There are some differences and preferences. For the most part, however, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the rest are arguing from the same piece of paper. True, Ron Paul has added some Libertarian flavor. Rick Santorum keeps social issues in the forefront. Herman Cain is a clear Tea Party alternative. Convincing "Americas' taken for granted" and "Americas' forgotten" will be the deciding factor.
I am not speaking of Republicans. They will not vote for Obama. Not even some of the "R.I.N.O.s" who were duped into straying in 08! Specifically, we are looking at two distinct groups: The "Disaffecteds," referred to in the June 16th blog and the "D.I.N.O.s"(Democrats in Name Only) introduced in the July 2nd blog. Win these two groups and you win the White House!
What do "Disaffecteds and D.I.N.O.'s" have in common? Let's examine their "wish list."
1. They want a simplified tax system that is fair and uncomplicated. A common complaint from both groups is "there are all kinds of tax loop holes that only rich people can take advantage of," that there is "minimal help" for "people raising children,"and they "don't have the resources to retain a high powered C.P.A."
2. They want a guarantee that entitlements are not going away. They understand that the Social Security age needs to be raised. They want Medicare to remain in place but acknowledge that "waste and fraud" are rampant. They are open to the idea that Medicaid "may best be handled from state level." The idea of illegal aliens, even children accessing Medicaid infuriates them. In short, they want health insurance premiums to drop. Drastically! "If it means allowing companies to cross state lines, let 'em come." To "D.I.N.O.'s and "Disaffecteds" this takes preference even over accommodating those with pre-existing conditions! "Sorry!"
3. They want jobs. PERIOD! This is more important to "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" than "threatening a sand lizard's existence" in Texas, or disturbing the "migratory patterns of Polar Bears in Alaska!" They are happy to relax FDA rules in favor of accommodating small food processors in rural areas. Same holds true for energy producers, mining resources in sparsely settle places like the Bakken basin of Montana and North Dakota. They have one question, "will jobs be created if these regulations are relaxed?" If the answer is "yes," they're in!
Both groups traditionally have a deep mistrust of Washington. To "D.I.N.O.'s" it was Washington that "ousted God from our public schools." To "Disaffecteds" it was Washington who "gave companies their blessing to ship our jobs overseas."
"D.I.N.O.'s" will cheer at the though of closing the Department of Education; provided pell grants remain available. "Disaffecteds" would be ready to pop the cork from a champaign bottle(or more accurately pop the top off a beer can)at word that the EPA was closing! Both groups would applaud the abolition of the Energy Department. To them, this is simply excessive government.
What about a balanced budget amendment? What about "term limits" for Congressmen and Senators?
"D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" aren't the brightest students of big government. They have a simplied perception of the way it should be. And maybe there's some wisdom to that! Why do we need all of these agencies? Especially if we cannot afford them! Why are we tied to standards that were imposed through judicial actions? What if those actions were partisan based? Are we yet bound to them? Can we not change some of these laws that may have been based on previously flawed judicial judgment? If so, how?
Let's start with the previous questions. Yes, a balanced budget amendment makes sense. They are painfully aware of what it's like to live on a budget. Why does Washington have a problem with it? Maybe it's because "it will be more difficult to rewards supporters" with "pork!" Term limits should be the law! Why not give more people a chance to represent their country? After all, it's difficult get someone out of office once they're entrenched! And, be real! Who's going to fire themselves from the best job in America?"
Do we detect a trace of cynicism here? If so, it is cynicism born of frustration! The "Disaffecteds" are "forgotten America." The "D.I.N.O.s" are "America's taken for granted."Both groups have been largely ignored by the political establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike. Now they are ready to send Washington a message!
Where can these "Disaffecteds" and "D.I.N.O.s" be found?
The best place to start the D.I.N.O. hunt is in the rural areas of Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Many are consistently voting for Republicans. True, they were fooled by the cordial accents of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. And, in many cases, remained registered Democrats only "to vote in local elections." This is especially the case in states holding closed primaries. Some voted for Obama. After all, they are more fair minded than some might think. However, don't double talk these D.I.N.O.s! They prescribe to an old saying, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"
The "Disaffecteds" generally abound in high unemployment areas. The Midwest holds many and if a candidate can convince them that their entitlements will not be placed in jeopardy, they have no problem with "reducing the cost of government." In essence, "you can pull the plug on any and all Washington agencies, if it means more jobs and doesn't take away my Medicare and Social Security entitlement."
In short, convince these two groups that "their needs are the needs of the country" and help yourself to the keys to the White House! Barack Obama did as much!
My inner most feeling hints that America will not give the President a second chance. Certainly there are those who will say it is because he's a "man of color." There may be a hint of truth to that! Nobody ever suggested that it would not be harder for a first time Black President. Even with media support, questions remain with Barack Obama's original qualifications. He didn't have a "thick resume" when he sought the office. Some of his appointments have been suspect. Perhaps the greatest hurdle for the President is the preception that he "campaigned from the center, then governed from the left." To "D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" this constitutes "disception."
The Republicans should remember this when nominating an opponent for Obama. Establishment Republicans will vote for any of the aforementioned candidates. Tea Party Repubicans may like some more than others, but they are not wavering. Welcoming all Americans hurt by the Obama's agenda can and will make the difference. Especially in swing states.
Many "D.I.N.O.s" are Evangelical Christians. Others are "fiscal conservatives" concerned with the debt and rising healthcare costs. They are key to Republicans recapturing Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa. They do not support Obamacare and they are disgusted with the growth and overreach of government. They believe that states should play a greater role in education and the environment.
Ohio, Florida and Michigan are awash with "Disaffecteds." Many are unemployed and underemployed. Their attitude is "show me a job and I'll show you my vote!"
The question becomes, "which Republican candidate can best bring both "D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" into the GOP tent? Here's a hint! He is not on the list of candidates named earlier.
In an earlier blog Florida Senator, Marco Rubio was identified as a candidate who could defeat Barack Obama. I stand by that assertion. But in the Republican scheme of things, it doesn't always work that way! Rubio's time will come and he stands to be the best possible Vice Presidential option for the 2012 ticket.
Considering the economy and the need to attract "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" the candidate who best fits the bill is Texas Governor, Rick Perry. Perry simply has it all!
It begins with the fact that he switched parties in 1988. It wasn't a matter of changing his mind. It was more along the Ronald Reagan logic of "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me."
The Democrats have evolved from a party that favored working families and small business' to a mouthpiece for special interests, non-taxpayers, unions and the ultra-super rich. Perry grew up on a farm near Abilene, Texas, the son of tenant farmers. He graduated from Texas A & M University. He later flew F-130's in the Air Force. Sounds like Middle Class America! He epitomizes the "Reagan Democrat" of the eighties. To "D.I.N.O" Democrats, "he's real."
Rick Perry has served 10 years as Governor of the second largest and one of the most diverse states in America. To top it off, Texas has accounted for 38% of all of the total U.S. jobs created during Obama's tenure. That, it itself will convince "Disaffecteds!" To them, it's about surviving! This translates to jobs, while retaining entitlements currently held. In spite of his flowery rhetoric, Obama hasn't delivered!
Perry is a constitutionalist. He is very quick to point to the 10th amendment as reason to rethink our massive Washington establishment. Maybe we need to bring decisions closer to home! It's food for thought!
The bare facts are, Perry's report card is "all "A's" when it comes to job creation. He has, what Barack Obama didn't have when seeking the Oval Office: "a resume!" True, he will scare anyone who loves the status quot. To them, he will "rock the boat," upsetting the way that "things have been done" in Washington.
To those wanting to make Barack Obama a "one-term president," Rick Perry is truly the "winning ticket." He will dramatically bring both "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" into the fold. They will support him hands down; for different reasons. Part of it relates to dissatifaction with Obama. Another factor is that Rick Perry "exudes confidence." As Dizzy Dean once said, "it ain't braggin', if you've done it!"
Barack Obama has demonstrated a sensitive ego throughout his tenure. He doesn't take criticism well. It's as if he is, "a legend in his own mind." At the core Obama is an "ideologue," painfully "over his head," who wants to give the impression of being in charge. Maybe this explains the arrogance that most perceive. When times are not good people resent being lectured! Especially from someone who hasn't felt the pain of a seemingly endless recession!
Which bring me to another saying, this from former University of Texas Head Football coach, Darrell Royal. As Royal quipped, "there is no such thing as King Kong. For those who think that there is, you better get ready to wipe your bloody nose."
There are some differences and preferences. For the most part, however, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the rest are arguing from the same piece of paper. True, Ron Paul has added some Libertarian flavor. Rick Santorum keeps social issues in the forefront. Herman Cain is a clear Tea Party alternative. Convincing "Americas' taken for granted" and "Americas' forgotten" will be the deciding factor.
I am not speaking of Republicans. They will not vote for Obama. Not even some of the "R.I.N.O.s" who were duped into straying in 08! Specifically, we are looking at two distinct groups: The "Disaffecteds," referred to in the June 16th blog and the "D.I.N.O.s"(Democrats in Name Only) introduced in the July 2nd blog. Win these two groups and you win the White House!
What do "Disaffecteds and D.I.N.O.'s" have in common? Let's examine their "wish list."
1. They want a simplified tax system that is fair and uncomplicated. A common complaint from both groups is "there are all kinds of tax loop holes that only rich people can take advantage of," that there is "minimal help" for "people raising children,"and they "don't have the resources to retain a high powered C.P.A."
2. They want a guarantee that entitlements are not going away. They understand that the Social Security age needs to be raised. They want Medicare to remain in place but acknowledge that "waste and fraud" are rampant. They are open to the idea that Medicaid "may best be handled from state level." The idea of illegal aliens, even children accessing Medicaid infuriates them. In short, they want health insurance premiums to drop. Drastically! "If it means allowing companies to cross state lines, let 'em come." To "D.I.N.O.'s and "Disaffecteds" this takes preference even over accommodating those with pre-existing conditions! "Sorry!"
3. They want jobs. PERIOD! This is more important to "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" than "threatening a sand lizard's existence" in Texas, or disturbing the "migratory patterns of Polar Bears in Alaska!" They are happy to relax FDA rules in favor of accommodating small food processors in rural areas. Same holds true for energy producers, mining resources in sparsely settle places like the Bakken basin of Montana and North Dakota. They have one question, "will jobs be created if these regulations are relaxed?" If the answer is "yes," they're in!
Both groups traditionally have a deep mistrust of Washington. To "D.I.N.O.'s" it was Washington that "ousted God from our public schools." To "Disaffecteds" it was Washington who "gave companies their blessing to ship our jobs overseas."
"D.I.N.O.'s" will cheer at the though of closing the Department of Education; provided pell grants remain available. "Disaffecteds" would be ready to pop the cork from a champaign bottle(or more accurately pop the top off a beer can)at word that the EPA was closing! Both groups would applaud the abolition of the Energy Department. To them, this is simply excessive government.
What about a balanced budget amendment? What about "term limits" for Congressmen and Senators?
"D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" aren't the brightest students of big government. They have a simplied perception of the way it should be. And maybe there's some wisdom to that! Why do we need all of these agencies? Especially if we cannot afford them! Why are we tied to standards that were imposed through judicial actions? What if those actions were partisan based? Are we yet bound to them? Can we not change some of these laws that may have been based on previously flawed judicial judgment? If so, how?
Let's start with the previous questions. Yes, a balanced budget amendment makes sense. They are painfully aware of what it's like to live on a budget. Why does Washington have a problem with it? Maybe it's because "it will be more difficult to rewards supporters" with "pork!" Term limits should be the law! Why not give more people a chance to represent their country? After all, it's difficult get someone out of office once they're entrenched! And, be real! Who's going to fire themselves from the best job in America?"
Do we detect a trace of cynicism here? If so, it is cynicism born of frustration! The "Disaffecteds" are "forgotten America." The "D.I.N.O.s" are "America's taken for granted."Both groups have been largely ignored by the political establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike. Now they are ready to send Washington a message!
Where can these "Disaffecteds" and "D.I.N.O.s" be found?
The best place to start the D.I.N.O. hunt is in the rural areas of Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Many are consistently voting for Republicans. True, they were fooled by the cordial accents of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. And, in many cases, remained registered Democrats only "to vote in local elections." This is especially the case in states holding closed primaries. Some voted for Obama. After all, they are more fair minded than some might think. However, don't double talk these D.I.N.O.s! They prescribe to an old saying, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"
The "Disaffecteds" generally abound in high unemployment areas. The Midwest holds many and if a candidate can convince them that their entitlements will not be placed in jeopardy, they have no problem with "reducing the cost of government." In essence, "you can pull the plug on any and all Washington agencies, if it means more jobs and doesn't take away my Medicare and Social Security entitlement."
In short, convince these two groups that "their needs are the needs of the country" and help yourself to the keys to the White House! Barack Obama did as much!
My inner most feeling hints that America will not give the President a second chance. Certainly there are those who will say it is because he's a "man of color." There may be a hint of truth to that! Nobody ever suggested that it would not be harder for a first time Black President. Even with media support, questions remain with Barack Obama's original qualifications. He didn't have a "thick resume" when he sought the office. Some of his appointments have been suspect. Perhaps the greatest hurdle for the President is the preception that he "campaigned from the center, then governed from the left." To "D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" this constitutes "disception."
The Republicans should remember this when nominating an opponent for Obama. Establishment Republicans will vote for any of the aforementioned candidates. Tea Party Repubicans may like some more than others, but they are not wavering. Welcoming all Americans hurt by the Obama's agenda can and will make the difference. Especially in swing states.
Many "D.I.N.O.s" are Evangelical Christians. Others are "fiscal conservatives" concerned with the debt and rising healthcare costs. They are key to Republicans recapturing Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa. They do not support Obamacare and they are disgusted with the growth and overreach of government. They believe that states should play a greater role in education and the environment.
Ohio, Florida and Michigan are awash with "Disaffecteds." Many are unemployed and underemployed. Their attitude is "show me a job and I'll show you my vote!"
The question becomes, "which Republican candidate can best bring both "D.I.N.O.'s" and "Disaffecteds" into the GOP tent? Here's a hint! He is not on the list of candidates named earlier.
In an earlier blog Florida Senator, Marco Rubio was identified as a candidate who could defeat Barack Obama. I stand by that assertion. But in the Republican scheme of things, it doesn't always work that way! Rubio's time will come and he stands to be the best possible Vice Presidential option for the 2012 ticket.
Considering the economy and the need to attract "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" the candidate who best fits the bill is Texas Governor, Rick Perry. Perry simply has it all!
It begins with the fact that he switched parties in 1988. It wasn't a matter of changing his mind. It was more along the Ronald Reagan logic of "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me."
The Democrats have evolved from a party that favored working families and small business' to a mouthpiece for special interests, non-taxpayers, unions and the ultra-super rich. Perry grew up on a farm near Abilene, Texas, the son of tenant farmers. He graduated from Texas A & M University. He later flew F-130's in the Air Force. Sounds like Middle Class America! He epitomizes the "Reagan Democrat" of the eighties. To "D.I.N.O" Democrats, "he's real."
Rick Perry has served 10 years as Governor of the second largest and one of the most diverse states in America. To top it off, Texas has accounted for 38% of all of the total U.S. jobs created during Obama's tenure. That, it itself will convince "Disaffecteds!" To them, it's about surviving! This translates to jobs, while retaining entitlements currently held. In spite of his flowery rhetoric, Obama hasn't delivered!
Perry is a constitutionalist. He is very quick to point to the 10th amendment as reason to rethink our massive Washington establishment. Maybe we need to bring decisions closer to home! It's food for thought!
The bare facts are, Perry's report card is "all "A's" when it comes to job creation. He has, what Barack Obama didn't have when seeking the Oval Office: "a resume!" True, he will scare anyone who loves the status quot. To them, he will "rock the boat," upsetting the way that "things have been done" in Washington.
To those wanting to make Barack Obama a "one-term president," Rick Perry is truly the "winning ticket." He will dramatically bring both "D.I.N.O.s" and "Disaffecteds" into the fold. They will support him hands down; for different reasons. Part of it relates to dissatifaction with Obama. Another factor is that Rick Perry "exudes confidence." As Dizzy Dean once said, "it ain't braggin', if you've done it!"
Barack Obama has demonstrated a sensitive ego throughout his tenure. He doesn't take criticism well. It's as if he is, "a legend in his own mind." At the core Obama is an "ideologue," painfully "over his head," who wants to give the impression of being in charge. Maybe this explains the arrogance that most perceive. When times are not good people resent being lectured! Especially from someone who hasn't felt the pain of a seemingly endless recession!
Which bring me to another saying, this from former University of Texas Head Football coach, Darrell Royal. As Royal quipped, "there is no such thing as King Kong. For those who think that there is, you better get ready to wipe your bloody nose."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)