Driving U.S. 71 in Western Arkansas in 1987 I witnessed a sad reality: The close forest of Shortleaf Pine Trees had been clear cut. What had been thick stands of majestic, 35 and 40-foot trees were now stumps and tiny saplings. It was enough to make even a mild tree lover indignant!
The culprit, Weyerhaeuser Paper defended the action. They explained that the "new trees would grow twice as fast" as the old ones. Twenty years later, I made the drive from Texarkana to Fort Smith, Arkansas and saw that they had been correct. Some minor erosion had taken place. Locals said the land itself "had looked bare" for a generation! And the unique, somewhat irregular Short Leaf Pines which marked the northwestern end of the southern pine forest were no more. In their place were healthy looking, "super" growers that not only grew faster, but provided a better wood product! Was this progress? To Weyerhaeuser it was! To Arkansans, it was "at a cost."
Sierra Club activists readily denounced clearcutting. They acknowledged that the new trees would grow faster. But their argument was tempered with an appeal for moderation. The end result was "selective harvest" methods. It proved to be the best solution and is the norm for today.
Most Americans hold at least marginal sentiments for protecting our land, air, trees, streams, lakes and beaches. Since the sixties there has been increased pride and awareness in cleanliness and environmental friendliness. America's report card is good, bordering on outstanding. We should be congradulating ourselves. Of course, there are those who continue to say that "we are not doing enough."
There are always extremists on every side of any issue. In the case of many Reagan era profiteers, Weyerhaeuser saw the long term dollar signs. Clearcutting the Ouachita National Forest was practical. After all, why let stand a tree that took fifty years to mature, when better trees could be planted that could be harvested in twenty years? Their point of view proved to be in the minority. Careful assessment of both positions brought the end result. Can we not learn from history?
Today, the pendulum has swung the other way!
The Environmental Protection Agency, now 17,000 employees strong has determined that a deepening recession is not sufficient reason for postphoning corrective measures. Under the leadership of EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, the agency will go full speed ahead with added regulations on smog, mercury, mining waste, and vehicle emissions. Every corner of the country will be affected.
The timing could not be worse for the Obama Administration. EPA believes that the administration did not fight hard enough for cap-and-trade legislation. Perhaps this was due to some inconclusive findings. Those who supported the legislation, expecially those in coal states, such as Kentucky's Ben Chandler, either lost or barely retained their Congressional seats. At a time when creating jobs is on the top of both Republicans and Democrats "wish lists," Jackson's agenda seems to be odds with it.
"I think that the face of the 2012 election is going to be EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson," said Barney Bishop, President and CEO of Associated Industries of Florida. Bishop, who describes himself as a "lifelong Democrat," added,"she is killing jobs faster than the president can create them."
The ideology of extremism has surfaced in recent times. When Bjorn Lomborg published "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World," he was hung in effigy by the Environmental Establishment. Three years later, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger delivered "the death of environmentalism" at the 2004 Environmental Grantmakers Association. In 2007, they published a book: "Break Through; From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility."
This somewhat "moderate to the left" point of view was scorned by Sierra Club President Carl Pope and stalwart proponents of the movement. Yet the message was clearly "not out in the ozone." They factually concluded that Kyoto state emission reductions failed any reasonable cost-benefit test.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger further angered the establishment in pointing out flaws in Waxman-Markey's cap-and-trade bill. They called Barack Obama's green jobs "a fraud;" actually labeled them "green jobs for janitors."
Not exactly right wing fringe brokers, Nordhaus and Shellenberger have championed left wing causes. They have consulted labor unions, gay rights groups and have been consistent advocates for tax increases. They scoff at such cliche's about the "fragility" of nature-"an obsolete paradigm of traditional conservation."
It is clearly evident that the environmental movement is having second thoughts.
There are more "green" advocates bringing out painful, yet pertinent information at odds with Jackson's directive. British Journalist, Fred Pearce's "The Coming Population Crash and Our Planet's Surprising Future," systematically dissects the previously accepted doctrine of climate change. David Roberts of Grist.org, another renowned "green" writer has questioned the overall validity of previous climate change conclusions.
Earlier this year, Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers projected a coming 30-year "mini ice age." He suggested that we may already be seeing the first stages of it. This came after a warming period that took place largely between 1980 and 2000. The world and beyond felt this. Temperature readings on the planet Mars were up almost two degrees from the time Viking landers began taking temperature readings in 1976 and when Pathfinder resumed the readings in 1997. This deviation was clearly unrelated to carbon emissions. One probable cause for the upcoming ice age may be the absence of "sunspots" on the Sun itself.
Americans seemingly are left with an out of control federal agency clearly determined to mandate and implement policies that are based on inconclusive and/or flawed information. Never mind that there are holes emerging on every end of previous theory! Who cares if there are millions of Americans currently out of work and more will become "green casualities" if Jackson is allowed to proceed with her agenda. Could the president put the brakes on EPA? Probably not! And if he could, he would infuriate California zealots such as Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Al Gore.
The center of Henry Waxman's district is Westlake Village, a pristine Ventura County, seemingly made for television community. Rarely does the temperature exceed 80 or drop below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The average household income is $190,000 per year.
Nancy Pelosi can muse between sips of Chardonnay from her Napa valley vinyard that she and her 35 million in assets "can see the big picture,unlike the little people."
Al Gore has banked tens of millions from his "sale" of a would be crisis which, at best, has been exaggerated. Does excess carbon consumption bother the former Vice President? It would appear that it doesn't; based on his prodigious Malibu mansion and private jet.
Unfortunately for Obama, all three were key supporters in his 2008 presidential run. To cross Lisa Jackson would be politically incorrect. Not to mention a guarantee of alientating key constituents certain to be influenced by the trio!
The EPA is now larger than the Internal Revenue Service. It has evidently decided to take charge and implement the failed cap-and-trade legislation, irregardless of whether the people want it or can afford it. In the mind of Lisa Jackson and her tight circle of ideologues, the EPA "simply knows what's best for us."
What about Michelle Bachmann's assertion that the best solution may be to merely "shut the agency down," pink slipping Ms. Jackson and her cohorts? Such an action would actually be consistent with the Constitution's 10th amendment! And, in looking at the results of low taxed states such as Texas which produced a 27 percent reduction in ozone levels and a 53 percent dropoff in mono-nitrogen oxides, maybe the states would be better stewards.
The bottom line is this: Business eventually moderated because of public pressure. The EPA answers to nobody. They have "carte blanche" to expedite a flawed theory, even if it results in further job loss. In the minds of Lisa Jackson and company, the theory isn't flawed. Only the people who question it are the problem.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
D.I.N.O. Democrats- The Opposite End of the Spectrum
A lot has been written about those "R.I.N.O. Republicans."
These "Republicans in Name Only," have drawn criticism from several quarters. In summary, they can best be described as "fiscal conservatives with more progressive social leanings." In past times, they have wielded perhaps more influence on the party than their numbers justified.
Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware was scorned by the Tea Party due in part to his "yea" vote on "Cap and Trade." Chris Coons, the eventual winner in the general election was "miles left" of Castle. Still most participants in the Republican primary concluded that it was better to nominate a "true believer" such as Christine O'Donnell than settle for "R.I.N.O. Castle. Did R.I.N.O.s in that state vote for Coons? Some did! GOP experts such as Karl Rove pointed out accurately that Castle's chances in the general election would have been better than O'Donnell's.
Establishment Republicans were quick to say that Sharon Angle was not the best opponent for Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race. The thinking was, a more centrist choice like Danny Tarkanian would do better with Independents. As it turned out, Angle swooned in the late going, her evident alienation of Latino voters a probable cause. But based on her 11th hour lead in the polls, one could surmise that some R.I.N.O.s might have voted for Harry Reid.
Colorado's Lt. Governor,Jane Norton, a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush official was edged out by Ken Buck in the Republican primary. Buck, the Tea Party choice lost ground with a fraction of female voters allowing Obama appointee, Michael Bennett to win narrowly. Could R.I.N.O's have been a part of Bennett's triumph?
In retrospect, if Castle, Norton and Tarkanian had been the Republican nominees, the GOP might have won all three races. As a result, they would control the Senate today. Any conservative would admit that Castle, Norton and Tarkanian would have been preferable to Reid, Coons and Bennett. The morale of the story: "Don't buck the party leadership!"
Of course, there were two Senate races, being Kentucky and Florida, that did not go the Establishments' way. Charlie Crist, the then popular governor of Florida was drilled by charismatic, Marco Rubio. Mitch McConnell Disciple, Trey Grayson was routed by Rand Paul in the GOP primary. Paul went on to defeat Democrat, Jack Conway by 12 points in the general election. Rubio's November victory may have been even more impressive. Slated against both Crist(who switched to Independent) and Democrat, Kendrick Meek, he garnered 52% of the total vote. He finished with 58% of the female vote.
Both Rubio and Paul were "Tea Party" candidates. While Paul has accepted the role as "poster boy" of the Tea Party, Rubio has maintained that the "Tea Party is a mainstreet, not Washington organization."
We can remember the Tea Party support for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election. Brown gratefully accepted the help. Once elected, he played the polls, knowing that his state had voted him in primarily because they already had health care, courtesy of his friend and supporter, Mitt Romney. Brown has been the consistent R.I.N.O. and is hardly to blame for it. He is up for election next year. His voting record will be difficult for Democrats to challenge. He may not be what "hard core" conservatives would have wished for. But, as former, Pro-English.Org Director and Bay State resident, Jayne Cannava put it, "with Massachusetts, Scott Brown is about as good as you're going to get if you are a Republican!"
The question becomes, "Does this somewhat awkward marriage between Tea Party and Establishment represent the single road to victory?" It might appear that way! At least on the surface. Probing deeper we come to the inevitible discovery: "If there are Republicans in name only, are there not Democrats in name only?" As in "D.I.N.O.s!"
Yes! They are the opposite end of the spectrum, the true wild cards.
Let us examine these "D.I.N.O. Democrats." They are fiscally progressive, yet socially conservative. This amounts to favoring a progressive tax system, social security, medicare and medicaid solvency. Bluntly put, they want their entitlements protected. At the same time, these D.I.N.O. Democrats oppose same sex marriage, favor strong immigration standards and are pro life. They want "a safety net." But they likewise want government to stay out of their way.
Republicans share the desire to make social security, medicare and medicaid solvent. Paul Ryan and company did offer a plan. Perhaps it's not the perfect plan, but it's a start. D.I.N.O's listen and are close to being convinced. Then, the GOP Congress decides that 99 weeks of eligible unemployment entitlements are too much. They propose legislation allowing states to pull the plug on recipients in favor of deficit reduction. Bad move and consistent with Democrats' claim that "Republicans lack compassion."
Democrats tout that the country has avoided adopting an immigration policy. But their alternative seems to always begin with amnesty! Not good! D.I.N.O.s are equally unhappy with current regulatory standards that have resulted in jobs being shipped overseas. For this, they blame "out of touch, liberal" members of their own party.
So where do the D.I.N.O.s stand? And what does their preference have to do with potential alliances with either Establishment or Tea Party Republicans?
Many Tea Party members are not Republicans. A large number are Indepedents. Some are Democrats. The idea behind protecting entitlements has never been scorned by Tea Party or Establishment Republicans. The difference may be in the notion that "entitlements are synonymous with excessive spending and big government." Is that true?
When Rand Paul presented his controversial budget plan, he called for eliminating the Education Department sans Pell Grants. In other words, entitlements continued. But the duplication of efforts(federal and state) ceased. D.I.N.O.s understand this. And here lies the fear for Democrats: "If the message of "reducing the cost of government" without reducing entitlements can be effectively transmitted, D.I.N.O.s are swayable! Ronald Reagan knew this. But he was careful not to link "recovery" with middle class Americans losing what they currently enjoyed. D.I.N.O.s were referred to then as "Reagan Democrats." They equated Jimmy Carter and the Democrats as the party of high taxes, needless regulation and big government. They spoke.
It is probable that 90% or more D.I.N.O. Democrats would favor the "E" Amendment. To them, English as the official language is "way past due!" "eliminating constitutional costs" does nothing but take power away from the courts; which is fine by them! The thought of illegal aliens having a "carte blanche" on entitlements outrages these voters.
Many Tea Party members have Libertarian leanings. The best way to increase freedom is to reduce the size and cost of government. Dismantling the federal bureaucracy, downsizing parts of it while eliminating others works. D.I.N.O. Democrats do not have a problem with this. Many still recall an overreaching federal government that outlawed school prayer while mandating busing. In today's economy the F.D.A. and the E.P.A. are seen as a "job killers."
Historically the D.I.N.O. Democrats have been somewhat "hawkish" where national defense is concerned. Reagan took advantage of this. But things may be changing. There seems to be more of a "mind your own business, look after your own" mentality taking hold in America. This is not good news for Establishment Republicans! But the Tea Party may hold many of these same convictions.
The "magic seed" found in every D.I.N.O. heart is the question of education. There is mounting concern for the runaway cost of a college education. Furthermore, there is the worry that traditional "good jobs" may be gone forever by way of outsourcing. There is the longing for a time past, where a grand living could be made with a trade. No more! To attempt to comprehend the concept of a global economy may be an impossibility. To D.I.N.O.s, it translates to greed. If big business can get people to do "a job and-a-half" for the "price of a job," they will. And, if they can get someone abroad to do a job for three dollars per hour as opposed to twenty, they'll do it. Surprisingly, most D.I.N.O.'s favor right to work.
Tea Partiers may look at these D.I.N.O.s as potential allies in reshaping America; and for good reason! They are threatened. They are somewhat bewildered. They are growing angrier by the day. There is a question of " can we still right a ship that is presumably destined to leave us behind?"
D.I.N.O. Democrats seek a solution that protects their basic interests first. It begins with a plan that includes "retention of existing benefits, good jobs and affordable education." This delivered, the remainder of the Democrat agenda can be compromised.
In short, the R.I.N.O.s have money, power and have traditionally run the Republican Party. The D.I.N.O.'s maintain their registration as Democrats but it is wavering. In addition to supporting Reagan, they supported both Bushes and McCain. They are growing more and more disillisioned by the Democrats gradual drift to the left. If Tea Party strategists can find a way to answer the education riddle, while not compromising their entitlements, they're in! And if they are, due to sheer numbers, the dynamics of the GOP will change.
In 2008 many R.I.N.O.s voted for Barack Obama. Conservative Republicans will never again truly trust them! It is safer to encourage an exodus of D.I.N.O.s to GOP ranks. This could change the "party of Wall Street to the party of Main Street."
There are more D.I.N.O.s than R.I.N.O.s. It would take only a fraction of them to sufficiently replace defecting R.I.N.O.s. In close races such as Nevada, Colorado and Delaware a fraction is all that would be needed.
These "Republicans in Name Only," have drawn criticism from several quarters. In summary, they can best be described as "fiscal conservatives with more progressive social leanings." In past times, they have wielded perhaps more influence on the party than their numbers justified.
Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware was scorned by the Tea Party due in part to his "yea" vote on "Cap and Trade." Chris Coons, the eventual winner in the general election was "miles left" of Castle. Still most participants in the Republican primary concluded that it was better to nominate a "true believer" such as Christine O'Donnell than settle for "R.I.N.O. Castle. Did R.I.N.O.s in that state vote for Coons? Some did! GOP experts such as Karl Rove pointed out accurately that Castle's chances in the general election would have been better than O'Donnell's.
Establishment Republicans were quick to say that Sharon Angle was not the best opponent for Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race. The thinking was, a more centrist choice like Danny Tarkanian would do better with Independents. As it turned out, Angle swooned in the late going, her evident alienation of Latino voters a probable cause. But based on her 11th hour lead in the polls, one could surmise that some R.I.N.O.s might have voted for Harry Reid.
Colorado's Lt. Governor,Jane Norton, a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush official was edged out by Ken Buck in the Republican primary. Buck, the Tea Party choice lost ground with a fraction of female voters allowing Obama appointee, Michael Bennett to win narrowly. Could R.I.N.O's have been a part of Bennett's triumph?
In retrospect, if Castle, Norton and Tarkanian had been the Republican nominees, the GOP might have won all three races. As a result, they would control the Senate today. Any conservative would admit that Castle, Norton and Tarkanian would have been preferable to Reid, Coons and Bennett. The morale of the story: "Don't buck the party leadership!"
Of course, there were two Senate races, being Kentucky and Florida, that did not go the Establishments' way. Charlie Crist, the then popular governor of Florida was drilled by charismatic, Marco Rubio. Mitch McConnell Disciple, Trey Grayson was routed by Rand Paul in the GOP primary. Paul went on to defeat Democrat, Jack Conway by 12 points in the general election. Rubio's November victory may have been even more impressive. Slated against both Crist(who switched to Independent) and Democrat, Kendrick Meek, he garnered 52% of the total vote. He finished with 58% of the female vote.
Both Rubio and Paul were "Tea Party" candidates. While Paul has accepted the role as "poster boy" of the Tea Party, Rubio has maintained that the "Tea Party is a mainstreet, not Washington organization."
We can remember the Tea Party support for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election. Brown gratefully accepted the help. Once elected, he played the polls, knowing that his state had voted him in primarily because they already had health care, courtesy of his friend and supporter, Mitt Romney. Brown has been the consistent R.I.N.O. and is hardly to blame for it. He is up for election next year. His voting record will be difficult for Democrats to challenge. He may not be what "hard core" conservatives would have wished for. But, as former, Pro-English.Org Director and Bay State resident, Jayne Cannava put it, "with Massachusetts, Scott Brown is about as good as you're going to get if you are a Republican!"
The question becomes, "Does this somewhat awkward marriage between Tea Party and Establishment represent the single road to victory?" It might appear that way! At least on the surface. Probing deeper we come to the inevitible discovery: "If there are Republicans in name only, are there not Democrats in name only?" As in "D.I.N.O.s!"
Yes! They are the opposite end of the spectrum, the true wild cards.
Let us examine these "D.I.N.O. Democrats." They are fiscally progressive, yet socially conservative. This amounts to favoring a progressive tax system, social security, medicare and medicaid solvency. Bluntly put, they want their entitlements protected. At the same time, these D.I.N.O. Democrats oppose same sex marriage, favor strong immigration standards and are pro life. They want "a safety net." But they likewise want government to stay out of their way.
Republicans share the desire to make social security, medicare and medicaid solvent. Paul Ryan and company did offer a plan. Perhaps it's not the perfect plan, but it's a start. D.I.N.O's listen and are close to being convinced. Then, the GOP Congress decides that 99 weeks of eligible unemployment entitlements are too much. They propose legislation allowing states to pull the plug on recipients in favor of deficit reduction. Bad move and consistent with Democrats' claim that "Republicans lack compassion."
Democrats tout that the country has avoided adopting an immigration policy. But their alternative seems to always begin with amnesty! Not good! D.I.N.O.s are equally unhappy with current regulatory standards that have resulted in jobs being shipped overseas. For this, they blame "out of touch, liberal" members of their own party.
So where do the D.I.N.O.s stand? And what does their preference have to do with potential alliances with either Establishment or Tea Party Republicans?
Many Tea Party members are not Republicans. A large number are Indepedents. Some are Democrats. The idea behind protecting entitlements has never been scorned by Tea Party or Establishment Republicans. The difference may be in the notion that "entitlements are synonymous with excessive spending and big government." Is that true?
When Rand Paul presented his controversial budget plan, he called for eliminating the Education Department sans Pell Grants. In other words, entitlements continued. But the duplication of efforts(federal and state) ceased. D.I.N.O.s understand this. And here lies the fear for Democrats: "If the message of "reducing the cost of government" without reducing entitlements can be effectively transmitted, D.I.N.O.s are swayable! Ronald Reagan knew this. But he was careful not to link "recovery" with middle class Americans losing what they currently enjoyed. D.I.N.O.s were referred to then as "Reagan Democrats." They equated Jimmy Carter and the Democrats as the party of high taxes, needless regulation and big government. They spoke.
It is probable that 90% or more D.I.N.O. Democrats would favor the "E" Amendment. To them, English as the official language is "way past due!" "eliminating constitutional costs" does nothing but take power away from the courts; which is fine by them! The thought of illegal aliens having a "carte blanche" on entitlements outrages these voters.
Many Tea Party members have Libertarian leanings. The best way to increase freedom is to reduce the size and cost of government. Dismantling the federal bureaucracy, downsizing parts of it while eliminating others works. D.I.N.O. Democrats do not have a problem with this. Many still recall an overreaching federal government that outlawed school prayer while mandating busing. In today's economy the F.D.A. and the E.P.A. are seen as a "job killers."
Historically the D.I.N.O. Democrats have been somewhat "hawkish" where national defense is concerned. Reagan took advantage of this. But things may be changing. There seems to be more of a "mind your own business, look after your own" mentality taking hold in America. This is not good news for Establishment Republicans! But the Tea Party may hold many of these same convictions.
The "magic seed" found in every D.I.N.O. heart is the question of education. There is mounting concern for the runaway cost of a college education. Furthermore, there is the worry that traditional "good jobs" may be gone forever by way of outsourcing. There is the longing for a time past, where a grand living could be made with a trade. No more! To attempt to comprehend the concept of a global economy may be an impossibility. To D.I.N.O.s, it translates to greed. If big business can get people to do "a job and-a-half" for the "price of a job," they will. And, if they can get someone abroad to do a job for three dollars per hour as opposed to twenty, they'll do it. Surprisingly, most D.I.N.O.'s favor right to work.
Tea Partiers may look at these D.I.N.O.s as potential allies in reshaping America; and for good reason! They are threatened. They are somewhat bewildered. They are growing angrier by the day. There is a question of " can we still right a ship that is presumably destined to leave us behind?"
D.I.N.O. Democrats seek a solution that protects their basic interests first. It begins with a plan that includes "retention of existing benefits, good jobs and affordable education." This delivered, the remainder of the Democrat agenda can be compromised.
In short, the R.I.N.O.s have money, power and have traditionally run the Republican Party. The D.I.N.O.'s maintain their registration as Democrats but it is wavering. In addition to supporting Reagan, they supported both Bushes and McCain. They are growing more and more disillisioned by the Democrats gradual drift to the left. If Tea Party strategists can find a way to answer the education riddle, while not compromising their entitlements, they're in! And if they are, due to sheer numbers, the dynamics of the GOP will change.
In 2008 many R.I.N.O.s voted for Barack Obama. Conservative Republicans will never again truly trust them! It is safer to encourage an exodus of D.I.N.O.s to GOP ranks. This could change the "party of Wall Street to the party of Main Street."
There are more D.I.N.O.s than R.I.N.O.s. It would take only a fraction of them to sufficiently replace defecting R.I.N.O.s. In close races such as Nevada, Colorado and Delaware a fraction is all that would be needed.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Pelosi's All Knowing Hypocrisy
House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi frequently positions herself as "friend of the middle class." In reality that would have been like Joseph Stalin calling himself "friend to the Peasant Farmer" in 1934.
Stalin stole their land, livestock and forced them to collectivize. Better than 14 million Peasant Farmers perished during this time of collectivization in the former Soviet Union. Stories are told about "Kulaks" who were violently forced from their land, herded into unheated cattle cars and shipped east. The term "Kulak" translates to a landowning farmer. One "Kulak" that comes to mind had 200 acres of land, 20 cows, 10 horses, some Hogs and Chickens and two barns. These "rich farmers" resisted and the Bolsheviks shot both adult men dead. The women were given five minutes to grab the children and whatever they could carry. Then it was on to the train for their 1000 mile junket to Siberia.
Of course, this action was in the interest of the common good. "The people" who Bolsheviks represented with hypocritical ardor, would ultimately benefit from this practice. Never mind how many would perish in the process! The countless tales of women arriving in snowbound Siberia, digging shallow holes and laying atop their children to keep them from freezing, was considered "for the common good." The famine and starvation these Peasants endured was a small price to pay when observing the big picture. To understand "why" was simply beyond the average persons' grasp! Stalinists considered all actions necessary for the betterment of the whole. Comrade Stalin knew best. Those who questioned him would quickly became proud holders of "a ticket;" to the Gulag!
While the methods may have softened, the mentality remains the same. Nancy Pelosi epitomizes "Americas' ruling class." She is one of those "all knowing elites" referenced in "E" is for English. One could reason that her "35 million plus" in personal assets might make it impossible for her to identity with the $30,000 per year "Disaffecteds" referenced in my June 16th blog. But in her mind, she is their ambassador!
Actually, she is as "out of touch as any human being on the planet!" If she were not, she would be first in line to condemn the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency: Americas "foremost job killer." If she truly cared about Americas' unemployed, she would be "burning the midnight oil" seeking ways to get people back to work. This might be as simple as joining Republicans in their plea to federal agencies to please "show indisputable facts and not theories when delaying issuance of permits, or enacting unnecessary lawsuits.
Maybe it's not Nancy's way! She had demonstrated little sympathy for the pocketbooks of Middle America! A vocal advocate of Henry Waxman's creation, AKA "Cap and Trade," her rationale was "we have a planet to save." It is a position that is held by surprisingly large numbers of politicians! Not the majority, perhaps. But there were enough votes either through genuine belief or via naive adoption to pass the bill in the House of Representitves. The Senate later proved to be a "hurdle too high." In the end, the E.P.A. proceeded anyway!
The Environmental Protection Agency is now larger than the Internal Revenue Service. As expected, a big staff translates to "the need to create more work to insure that everyone remain busy." It generally translates to "overzealousness." This can lead to problems.
At the top of the list may be the question of "hydralic fracturing." This process of "pumping water, sand and trace chemicals" into a completed wellbore is the subject of vigorous debate. Proponents affirm correctly that the process unlocks vast stores of oil and natural gas. The opposition led by an aggressive E.P.A. cite issues ranging from "earthquakes to fire in your kitchen faucet."
Evidence is inconclusive at best. Many assertions are simply misrepresentations or exaggerations! The E.P.A. largely makes determinations based on limited studies by inside panels. Their way often does not to consult industry professionals. Perhaps these outside conclusions might deviate from what is politically correct! They might even be at odds with a pre-determined agenda!
From a practical point of view, the country needs to become energy independent. The United States has more energy resources than any country in the world. But, like no other country, we limit or prohibit access to these resources. Would Nancy Pelosi care if this practice might be standing in the way of a recovery? You would think that she would! After all, she calls herself a "friend of the middle class!" Hydrallic fracturing potentially creates hundred of thousands of high paying jobs. A lot would go to holders of a G.E.D.! These are working people who have been especially hurt by the recession.
Maybe in her mind, Nancy Pelosi is convinced that she is acting in the best interest of America! Stalinists concluded the act of collectivation was in the interest of both Peasants, Working Class and the overall common good. The question becomes, "is this the kind of America most of us want?"
What about the "unemployed Joe?" Would he bank on E.P.A. wisdom? Or would he take his chances that they were wrong? The answer is too predictable. That's why "elites" such as Ms. Pelosi argue that these "Disaffecteds" simply lack the depth to understand the big picture.
When Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter in 1980, the centerpiece of his argument was the need to "reduce the cost of government." This translated to downsizing overstaffed agencies such as the E.P.A.. As Reagan phraised, "when government becomes too large, in their efforts to help, they often bring about harm."
It's probable that Nancy Pelosi would differ with President Reagan. But Senator Rand Paul quickly pointed out that fiscal sanity begins with a government that knows how to live within its means. His proposed budget alternative makes great strides in this direction. The plan also has an answer to overzealousness: "It is more difficult to over regulate when you are understaffed."
From "Joe Six-Pack's" point of view, "it's about jobs!" He will take the $22 per hour job at the well and worry about the downside of "hydralic fracturing" later! Nancy Pelosi would tell you this. In her eyes, "Joe Six-Pack" is simply not sufficiently astute on the subject. While initially painful, "our way" is for the "common good."
Sound familiar?
Stalin stole their land, livestock and forced them to collectivize. Better than 14 million Peasant Farmers perished during this time of collectivization in the former Soviet Union. Stories are told about "Kulaks" who were violently forced from their land, herded into unheated cattle cars and shipped east. The term "Kulak" translates to a landowning farmer. One "Kulak" that comes to mind had 200 acres of land, 20 cows, 10 horses, some Hogs and Chickens and two barns. These "rich farmers" resisted and the Bolsheviks shot both adult men dead. The women were given five minutes to grab the children and whatever they could carry. Then it was on to the train for their 1000 mile junket to Siberia.
Of course, this action was in the interest of the common good. "The people" who Bolsheviks represented with hypocritical ardor, would ultimately benefit from this practice. Never mind how many would perish in the process! The countless tales of women arriving in snowbound Siberia, digging shallow holes and laying atop their children to keep them from freezing, was considered "for the common good." The famine and starvation these Peasants endured was a small price to pay when observing the big picture. To understand "why" was simply beyond the average persons' grasp! Stalinists considered all actions necessary for the betterment of the whole. Comrade Stalin knew best. Those who questioned him would quickly became proud holders of "a ticket;" to the Gulag!
While the methods may have softened, the mentality remains the same. Nancy Pelosi epitomizes "Americas' ruling class." She is one of those "all knowing elites" referenced in "E" is for English. One could reason that her "35 million plus" in personal assets might make it impossible for her to identity with the $30,000 per year "Disaffecteds" referenced in my June 16th blog. But in her mind, she is their ambassador!
Actually, she is as "out of touch as any human being on the planet!" If she were not, she would be first in line to condemn the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency: Americas "foremost job killer." If she truly cared about Americas' unemployed, she would be "burning the midnight oil" seeking ways to get people back to work. This might be as simple as joining Republicans in their plea to federal agencies to please "show indisputable facts and not theories when delaying issuance of permits, or enacting unnecessary lawsuits.
Maybe it's not Nancy's way! She had demonstrated little sympathy for the pocketbooks of Middle America! A vocal advocate of Henry Waxman's creation, AKA "Cap and Trade," her rationale was "we have a planet to save." It is a position that is held by surprisingly large numbers of politicians! Not the majority, perhaps. But there were enough votes either through genuine belief or via naive adoption to pass the bill in the House of Representitves. The Senate later proved to be a "hurdle too high." In the end, the E.P.A. proceeded anyway!
The Environmental Protection Agency is now larger than the Internal Revenue Service. As expected, a big staff translates to "the need to create more work to insure that everyone remain busy." It generally translates to "overzealousness." This can lead to problems.
At the top of the list may be the question of "hydralic fracturing." This process of "pumping water, sand and trace chemicals" into a completed wellbore is the subject of vigorous debate. Proponents affirm correctly that the process unlocks vast stores of oil and natural gas. The opposition led by an aggressive E.P.A. cite issues ranging from "earthquakes to fire in your kitchen faucet."
Evidence is inconclusive at best. Many assertions are simply misrepresentations or exaggerations! The E.P.A. largely makes determinations based on limited studies by inside panels. Their way often does not to consult industry professionals. Perhaps these outside conclusions might deviate from what is politically correct! They might even be at odds with a pre-determined agenda!
From a practical point of view, the country needs to become energy independent. The United States has more energy resources than any country in the world. But, like no other country, we limit or prohibit access to these resources. Would Nancy Pelosi care if this practice might be standing in the way of a recovery? You would think that she would! After all, she calls herself a "friend of the middle class!" Hydrallic fracturing potentially creates hundred of thousands of high paying jobs. A lot would go to holders of a G.E.D.! These are working people who have been especially hurt by the recession.
Maybe in her mind, Nancy Pelosi is convinced that she is acting in the best interest of America! Stalinists concluded the act of collectivation was in the interest of both Peasants, Working Class and the overall common good. The question becomes, "is this the kind of America most of us want?"
What about the "unemployed Joe?" Would he bank on E.P.A. wisdom? Or would he take his chances that they were wrong? The answer is too predictable. That's why "elites" such as Ms. Pelosi argue that these "Disaffecteds" simply lack the depth to understand the big picture.
When Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter in 1980, the centerpiece of his argument was the need to "reduce the cost of government." This translated to downsizing overstaffed agencies such as the E.P.A.. As Reagan phraised, "when government becomes too large, in their efforts to help, they often bring about harm."
It's probable that Nancy Pelosi would differ with President Reagan. But Senator Rand Paul quickly pointed out that fiscal sanity begins with a government that knows how to live within its means. His proposed budget alternative makes great strides in this direction. The plan also has an answer to overzealousness: "It is more difficult to over regulate when you are understaffed."
From "Joe Six-Pack's" point of view, "it's about jobs!" He will take the $22 per hour job at the well and worry about the downside of "hydralic fracturing" later! Nancy Pelosi would tell you this. In her eyes, "Joe Six-Pack" is simply not sufficiently astute on the subject. While initially painful, "our way" is for the "common good."
Sound familiar?
Thursday, June 16, 2011
"Disaffecteds"- Understanding Overlooked America
Henry Olsen may have hit on the "key to the 2012 Presidential election." In his June 20th, National Review article, he profoundly lent insight on "Disaffecteds," what may be "overlooked America."
As Olsen determined "Disaffecteds" are primarily(77%) blue-color whites, and 89% do not hold a college degree." Two thirds of them are listed as "political independents." Most are opposed to free trade. Most make less than $30,000 per year. 44% are parents. Two thirds favor a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts. Only 28% give Obama a positive approval rating and only 22% would vote to re-elect him. As a whole, the white "Disaffecteds" "are opposed to today's left."
It might be concluded that these "Disaffecteds" are members of the Tea Party. Not necessarily! Per this study, "only 19%" support the Tea Party and "67% have no opinion." This is the highest of any Pew group.
What Olsen didn't reference in his close observation was "how many "Disaffecteds" would support the "E" Amendment?" Chances are, most if not all would! Here's why:
The "E" amendment is about returning control to the middle class. "Disaffecteds" would immediately pick up on the importance of I.D. cards. Whether real or imagined, they are quick to accuse illegals of taking employment from legal citizens. While evidence suggests that illegals accept jobs that legal citizens pass on, exceptions abound.
"English" only voting ballots and drivers license testing would draw support from "Disaffecteds." Striking Phyler versus Doe would be extremely popular with this group. The idea of someone, even a child, illegally receiving entitlements infuriates them!
So many Disaffecteds make up what is commonly referred to as "the working poor." They are extremely sensitive to any legislation that might change the entitlement structure. This may have been the reason behind Jane Corwin's defeat in the recent New York Congressional race. She was unable to connect with these voters while her opponent hammered her on Paul Ryan's proposed plan for Medicare and Medicaid.
Often the key is communication. Marco Rubio grabbed "Disaffected's" attention in the Florida Senate race when he proposed that "we buy our health insurance like we buy our car insurance." This is easy to understand. If you have only three or four companies allowed to compete for the health care business, you will pay more. Just imagine if only State Farm, Allstate and Nationwide were our auto options? Conversely, if all 1300 Health Insurance companies could compete, the premiums would drop. "Joe Six-pack" understands this.
Ryan's plan would benefit them more than most. Besides, any plan is better than no plan! At the present course, the entire program will be bankrupt if immediate attention is not given. Ryan's plan is sound. But he may well have presented it to the American people in Russian! Few understand it, "Disaffecteds" included. The Democrat was able to pick up on this and took the election as a result.
"Disaffecteds" would understand the "E" Amendment's ban on "outsourcing any job that required an Americans' social security number." True, the jobs would be mostly low paying. But "Disaffecteds" would see them as "easy service jobs with benefits." This translates to "an opportunity for one spouse to get the family on a group health insurance plan while the other pursued 1099 work." Many "Disaffecteds" work in a small business, often as a Sole Proprietor. This could be huge; a decisive factor that would win their vote. It has to do with "living on the edge." Establishment Republicans often can't relate to this mentality.
"Disaffecteds" typically distrust liberalism and do not have confidence that the government knows what to do. Yet, according to Olsen's study almost three-fourths of them want to focus on domestic affairs as opposed to world affairs. This reflects hardline Democrats and Tea Partiers to some extent. This very notion could be the "in" the Tea Party might seek if they choose to cultivate this group.
Most "Disaffecteds" could be attracted by legislation that addressed their immediate needs while simultaneously raising their standing in society. Everyone likes to feel that they are significant. The "E" Amendment does this when it invites these overlooked and often forgotten Americans to become "Eagles."
What really "rings their bell" is job creation. And, the "promise of a level playing field" where they are the prime benefactors. They do not have a problem with downsizing the government or "reducing constitutional costs." As long as it doesn't translate to eliminating their own entitlements.
Social Stratificationists might catagorize "Disaffecteds" as "lower middle class." Labels aside, they stand as the likely key to the 2012 Presidential election. Unlocking the gate may be as easy as asking the right questions. Or introducing the most strategically beneficial legislation.
As Olsen determined "Disaffecteds" are primarily(77%) blue-color whites, and 89% do not hold a college degree." Two thirds of them are listed as "political independents." Most are opposed to free trade. Most make less than $30,000 per year. 44% are parents. Two thirds favor a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts. Only 28% give Obama a positive approval rating and only 22% would vote to re-elect him. As a whole, the white "Disaffecteds" "are opposed to today's left."
It might be concluded that these "Disaffecteds" are members of the Tea Party. Not necessarily! Per this study, "only 19%" support the Tea Party and "67% have no opinion." This is the highest of any Pew group.
What Olsen didn't reference in his close observation was "how many "Disaffecteds" would support the "E" Amendment?" Chances are, most if not all would! Here's why:
The "E" amendment is about returning control to the middle class. "Disaffecteds" would immediately pick up on the importance of I.D. cards. Whether real or imagined, they are quick to accuse illegals of taking employment from legal citizens. While evidence suggests that illegals accept jobs that legal citizens pass on, exceptions abound.
"English" only voting ballots and drivers license testing would draw support from "Disaffecteds." Striking Phyler versus Doe would be extremely popular with this group. The idea of someone, even a child, illegally receiving entitlements infuriates them!
So many Disaffecteds make up what is commonly referred to as "the working poor." They are extremely sensitive to any legislation that might change the entitlement structure. This may have been the reason behind Jane Corwin's defeat in the recent New York Congressional race. She was unable to connect with these voters while her opponent hammered her on Paul Ryan's proposed plan for Medicare and Medicaid.
Often the key is communication. Marco Rubio grabbed "Disaffected's" attention in the Florida Senate race when he proposed that "we buy our health insurance like we buy our car insurance." This is easy to understand. If you have only three or four companies allowed to compete for the health care business, you will pay more. Just imagine if only State Farm, Allstate and Nationwide were our auto options? Conversely, if all 1300 Health Insurance companies could compete, the premiums would drop. "Joe Six-pack" understands this.
Ryan's plan would benefit them more than most. Besides, any plan is better than no plan! At the present course, the entire program will be bankrupt if immediate attention is not given. Ryan's plan is sound. But he may well have presented it to the American people in Russian! Few understand it, "Disaffecteds" included. The Democrat was able to pick up on this and took the election as a result.
"Disaffecteds" would understand the "E" Amendment's ban on "outsourcing any job that required an Americans' social security number." True, the jobs would be mostly low paying. But "Disaffecteds" would see them as "easy service jobs with benefits." This translates to "an opportunity for one spouse to get the family on a group health insurance plan while the other pursued 1099 work." Many "Disaffecteds" work in a small business, often as a Sole Proprietor. This could be huge; a decisive factor that would win their vote. It has to do with "living on the edge." Establishment Republicans often can't relate to this mentality.
"Disaffecteds" typically distrust liberalism and do not have confidence that the government knows what to do. Yet, according to Olsen's study almost three-fourths of them want to focus on domestic affairs as opposed to world affairs. This reflects hardline Democrats and Tea Partiers to some extent. This very notion could be the "in" the Tea Party might seek if they choose to cultivate this group.
Most "Disaffecteds" could be attracted by legislation that addressed their immediate needs while simultaneously raising their standing in society. Everyone likes to feel that they are significant. The "E" Amendment does this when it invites these overlooked and often forgotten Americans to become "Eagles."
What really "rings their bell" is job creation. And, the "promise of a level playing field" where they are the prime benefactors. They do not have a problem with downsizing the government or "reducing constitutional costs." As long as it doesn't translate to eliminating their own entitlements.
Social Stratificationists might catagorize "Disaffecteds" as "lower middle class." Labels aside, they stand as the likely key to the 2012 Presidential election. Unlocking the gate may be as easy as asking the right questions. Or introducing the most strategically beneficial legislation.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
"Navigating Article V"
We continue to behold the insightfulness of our founding fathers! Especially when dissecting the U.S. Constituton. Article Five confirmed concern with future political leaders' arrogance and stubborness in regard to changing or altering existing laws.
This has recently surfaced in a veiled threat to derail Obamacare. House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor sees it as an option. It works something like this:
"Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment and subsequent ratification.
"Amendments may be proposed by either two-third of both houses of the United States Congress or by a national convention. This convention can be assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become part of the Constitution amendments must then be ratified either by approval of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states." 1
In essence, it would take two-thirds of the states to call a convention and three-fourths of the states to change the law. With 26 states currently filing suit, we are obviously getting close to the necessary 37 needed to kill Obamacare; or make any other change deemed necessary.
This may be the ultimate strategy for bringing about "term limits" for Senators and Congressmen.
The discussion on term limits is not extreme. It is currently practiced by a number of states. It is not new. While Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul made it an issue in his 2010 election campaign, the question has been around for years. It came up in the 1992 Presidential debate. Bill Clinton voiced his oppostion to it on grounds that "it would reduce the small states' influence." This is true. Former Arkansas Congressman, Wilbur Mills and ex-Alaska Senator, Ted Stevens wielded tremendous power due to seniority. Seniority becomes irrelevant when the maximum tenure is 12 years.
President Clinton's viewpoint holds some credence. But it also works to hold seats indefinitely for well funded Congressmen and Senators. It likewise facilitates and perpetuates the influence of lobbyists.
Our founding fathers never envisioned career politicians. The premise behind the framers' creation was a government made up of representitves from all walks of life, including different levels of society. They envisioned "citizens taking a break from their farm, business or profession to perform civic duty."
Unspoken was the assumption that such a system would insure different participants with a flow of new ideas. Senate and House seats were never considered anything but "owned" by the people of their respected states.
Over time the perception of civic duty has become somewhat altered. Thirty and Forty year tenures became commonplace. To be sure there are and have been Congressmen and Senators who have served their country honorably. There have also been a few "Bill Frists" who promised never to serve terms longer than a cumulative 12 years. But those have been the exception, not the rule.
There is an obvious reason! These House and Senate seats are some of the best jobs in America. With them comes both influence and income that far exceed the chamber and paycheck! Who would voluntarily "fire" themself from the best job in America?"
Cynics suggest that "you could never get a term limits bill through the House and and Senate." That position is wellfounded! Considering the "friction" almost certain to be at hand, it would closely resemble a "fools errand."
But what about Article Five? Could two-thirds of the states call a convention to discuss it? And if three-fourths of the states said "yes,"
could it become a reality?
"The Constitution does not make clear how the Convention is to be composed; presumably, Congress-through a federal statute-would be able to determine how the delegates are chosen and to provide for other procedural issues." 2
We can conclude that the proponent states would engage in daily if not hourly communcication. Unlike our founding fathers, they have the internet! In short, it is a viable option! If and when we decide to take this route, it would be only a matter of time.
There will never be an argument from Liberals or Conservatives regarding the ingenuity of our Constitution. Perhaps the framers predicted this day would come. Our people have grown apathetic where government is concerned. To most, "they" are in Washington and "we" are here. There is nothing that "we" can do to change that. But there is! The concept of a constitutional convention potentially brings decision making back to Main street. The founding fathers evidently thought it might become necessary to "flush out the system" from time to time. That's why Article Five included an alternative.
1- Article Five of the Constitution- Wikipedia
2- Article Five of the Constitution- 4Law School
This has recently surfaced in a veiled threat to derail Obamacare. House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor sees it as an option. It works something like this:
"Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment and subsequent ratification.
"Amendments may be proposed by either two-third of both houses of the United States Congress or by a national convention. This convention can be assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become part of the Constitution amendments must then be ratified either by approval of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states." 1
In essence, it would take two-thirds of the states to call a convention and three-fourths of the states to change the law. With 26 states currently filing suit, we are obviously getting close to the necessary 37 needed to kill Obamacare; or make any other change deemed necessary.
This may be the ultimate strategy for bringing about "term limits" for Senators and Congressmen.
The discussion on term limits is not extreme. It is currently practiced by a number of states. It is not new. While Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul made it an issue in his 2010 election campaign, the question has been around for years. It came up in the 1992 Presidential debate. Bill Clinton voiced his oppostion to it on grounds that "it would reduce the small states' influence." This is true. Former Arkansas Congressman, Wilbur Mills and ex-Alaska Senator, Ted Stevens wielded tremendous power due to seniority. Seniority becomes irrelevant when the maximum tenure is 12 years.
President Clinton's viewpoint holds some credence. But it also works to hold seats indefinitely for well funded Congressmen and Senators. It likewise facilitates and perpetuates the influence of lobbyists.
Our founding fathers never envisioned career politicians. The premise behind the framers' creation was a government made up of representitves from all walks of life, including different levels of society. They envisioned "citizens taking a break from their farm, business or profession to perform civic duty."
Unspoken was the assumption that such a system would insure different participants with a flow of new ideas. Senate and House seats were never considered anything but "owned" by the people of their respected states.
Over time the perception of civic duty has become somewhat altered. Thirty and Forty year tenures became commonplace. To be sure there are and have been Congressmen and Senators who have served their country honorably. There have also been a few "Bill Frists" who promised never to serve terms longer than a cumulative 12 years. But those have been the exception, not the rule.
There is an obvious reason! These House and Senate seats are some of the best jobs in America. With them comes both influence and income that far exceed the chamber and paycheck! Who would voluntarily "fire" themself from the best job in America?"
Cynics suggest that "you could never get a term limits bill through the House and and Senate." That position is wellfounded! Considering the "friction" almost certain to be at hand, it would closely resemble a "fools errand."
But what about Article Five? Could two-thirds of the states call a convention to discuss it? And if three-fourths of the states said "yes,"
could it become a reality?
"The Constitution does not make clear how the Convention is to be composed; presumably, Congress-through a federal statute-would be able to determine how the delegates are chosen and to provide for other procedural issues." 2
We can conclude that the proponent states would engage in daily if not hourly communcication. Unlike our founding fathers, they have the internet! In short, it is a viable option! If and when we decide to take this route, it would be only a matter of time.
There will never be an argument from Liberals or Conservatives regarding the ingenuity of our Constitution. Perhaps the framers predicted this day would come. Our people have grown apathetic where government is concerned. To most, "they" are in Washington and "we" are here. There is nothing that "we" can do to change that. But there is! The concept of a constitutional convention potentially brings decision making back to Main street. The founding fathers evidently thought it might become necessary to "flush out the system" from time to time. That's why Article Five included an alternative.
1- Article Five of the Constitution- Wikipedia
2- Article Five of the Constitution- 4Law School
Monday, May 30, 2011
"Tea Party Ordnance"
Marco Rubio eloquently clarified the role of the Tea Party in accurately describing it as a "grassroots" movement. It is not and was never intended to be a Washington based poltical action committee. Maybe that's why the media has encountered difficulty "pigeonholing" it. As was said about co-operative advertising in the eighties it's like "trying to put jelly on the wall with thumbtacks."
In short, there are "many strains striving for the same common objective."
This objective seems to be clear. "America must learn to live within her means, which translates to cutting spending." As Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul emphasized, "we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." Essentially, the idea echos Ronald Reagan's 1980 plea: "we need to reduce the cost of government."
History has taught us that whenever a decisive plan is introduced, there are critics. In most cases it is criticism without alternatives. Paul Ryan can vouch for this! From there it becomes tainted and even personal. Usually, there are slurs that border on "exhibitions of hyperbole." The best example of this is alleged racism. Referring to the Tea Party as "racist" is as accurate as describing John F. Kennedy as "a Mormon."
Predicably, when Tea Partier, Randy Paul introduced a serious proposal that would make a dent in the nations' 15 trillion dollar deficit, it was impugned as "extreme" and "radical." In reality, even this "extreme, radical" plan accounted for only one-third of the number. So, where would the rest come from? Medicare? Social Security? Defense?
The Tea Party has raised awareness regarding Americas' precarious financial position. While Paul's detailed reductions are appalling, they crystallize the true dilemma.
Liberals and Moderates alike ruefully acknowledge that "shared sacrifice" in the form of higher taxes are both necessary and imminent. Obama's bi-partisan commission said as much. It wasn't received with a red carpet. When Congressman Ryan put forth a plan to save Medicare, he received cold shoulders from Democrats and "R.I.N.O." Republicans.
Ryan's plan didn't touch Social Security. But Paul admitted during his campaign that "the age would need to be raised eventually." This is inevitable because at "time of inception, the average age was less than 65." People are living longer. Even those on the far left acknowledge this!
Let's assume that we adopted both Paul and Ryan's plans. Then we raised the age of social security to the levels proposed by Obama's commission. Wouldn't we still be short? It would appear without some increase in revenue, we would be! Or, at least, the experts would suggest such. However, there may be additional help in the form of new proposed legislation. Enter the "E" Amendment!
Hidden inside a decisive plan to improve literacy standards in America are numerous, money saving "offshoots" that would result automatically from the "E" Amendment's passage. They would be realized mostly at state level.
One of the greatest criticisms of Paul's plan was that it "placed additional financial burdens on the states." The "E" amendment removes existing expenses as fast as new expenses might be created! English only voting ballots would put the reins on aggressive Justice Department mandates as was seen in Cuyahoga County, Ohio in October 2010. English only drivers license testing would check efforts by free spending Governors such as Kentucky's Steve Beshear, to offer written drivers tests in multiple languages. No doubt you would hear "howls" from those crying "diversity!" But we are talking about "shared sacrifice."
A moratorium on "outsourcing jobs that utilized Americans' social security numbers" would take hundreds of thousands off the unemployment roles here at home. Of course, big business would complain! They would say that "profits would drop, stock prices would drop." But we are talking about "shared sacrifice."
Selling the postal service to private enterprise, then introducing a "residentual access tax on commerically oriented direct mail" would generate massive revenue. I can imagine what the postal workers union would say about that one! "What if U.P.S. got rid of our overfunded pension in favor or a minimal annuity?" It goes back to "shared sacrifice."
What about the direct mail companies? They never had a problem with their "bulk mailing permits!"
Striking Phyler versus Doe would remove masses of illegal aliens from entitlement rolls. "How heartless! How draconian," they would say! This "shared sacrifice" would impact children! Never mind that they are in the country illegally!
Would these provisions be enough to make up the difference? Possibly! It would be close enough to merit a study. Meanwhile, the average American would know that there were alternatives. Alternatives to a gasoline tax, an increased income tax, a "value added tax," or the elimination of a deduction currently enjoyed.
In essence, the Tea Party, a loosely constructed army of Americans from coast-to-coast, united in their quest for fiscal sanity would have their ordnance; in the form of the "E" Amendment. The "E" Amendment would quietly remove obstacles. These "obstacles" can be defined as dogmatic politicians and nuisance lawsuits that would attempt to protect an unsustainable system of spending money that we don't have.
The "unholy alliance" between the Tea Party and the left might actualize in the form of newly hatched "Eagles for America." The Tea Party advocates foreign military intervention only with Congressional authorization. This could translate to "no nation building, no foreign give-a-ways." Establishment Republicans wince at this thought. "Eagles" are on board with it and go one step further: "after we balance the budget, return any surplus to the states on the condition that the money is used to facilitate four-year public higher education for qualified students."
The idea is based on "charity beginning at home." While we may be investing in countries for the purpose of "protecting our national interests," the question becomes, "what" is defined as "our?" Americans may have different ideas regarding our "national interests." To many, affordable higher education at home may take on a higher priority than substidizing a foreign government.
Thus, the Tea Party becomes more than a "fringe element" of the Republican party. In effect, we are seeing a formitable coalition emerging that strives for fiscal sanity coupled with the notion that all Americans are "relevant and significant."
It puts one in awe to imagine how fast this thing could develop.
In short, there are "many strains striving for the same common objective."
This objective seems to be clear. "America must learn to live within her means, which translates to cutting spending." As Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul emphasized, "we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." Essentially, the idea echos Ronald Reagan's 1980 plea: "we need to reduce the cost of government."
History has taught us that whenever a decisive plan is introduced, there are critics. In most cases it is criticism without alternatives. Paul Ryan can vouch for this! From there it becomes tainted and even personal. Usually, there are slurs that border on "exhibitions of hyperbole." The best example of this is alleged racism. Referring to the Tea Party as "racist" is as accurate as describing John F. Kennedy as "a Mormon."
Predicably, when Tea Partier, Randy Paul introduced a serious proposal that would make a dent in the nations' 15 trillion dollar deficit, it was impugned as "extreme" and "radical." In reality, even this "extreme, radical" plan accounted for only one-third of the number. So, where would the rest come from? Medicare? Social Security? Defense?
The Tea Party has raised awareness regarding Americas' precarious financial position. While Paul's detailed reductions are appalling, they crystallize the true dilemma.
Liberals and Moderates alike ruefully acknowledge that "shared sacrifice" in the form of higher taxes are both necessary and imminent. Obama's bi-partisan commission said as much. It wasn't received with a red carpet. When Congressman Ryan put forth a plan to save Medicare, he received cold shoulders from Democrats and "R.I.N.O." Republicans.
Ryan's plan didn't touch Social Security. But Paul admitted during his campaign that "the age would need to be raised eventually." This is inevitable because at "time of inception, the average age was less than 65." People are living longer. Even those on the far left acknowledge this!
Let's assume that we adopted both Paul and Ryan's plans. Then we raised the age of social security to the levels proposed by Obama's commission. Wouldn't we still be short? It would appear without some increase in revenue, we would be! Or, at least, the experts would suggest such. However, there may be additional help in the form of new proposed legislation. Enter the "E" Amendment!
Hidden inside a decisive plan to improve literacy standards in America are numerous, money saving "offshoots" that would result automatically from the "E" Amendment's passage. They would be realized mostly at state level.
One of the greatest criticisms of Paul's plan was that it "placed additional financial burdens on the states." The "E" amendment removes existing expenses as fast as new expenses might be created! English only voting ballots would put the reins on aggressive Justice Department mandates as was seen in Cuyahoga County, Ohio in October 2010. English only drivers license testing would check efforts by free spending Governors such as Kentucky's Steve Beshear, to offer written drivers tests in multiple languages. No doubt you would hear "howls" from those crying "diversity!" But we are talking about "shared sacrifice."
A moratorium on "outsourcing jobs that utilized Americans' social security numbers" would take hundreds of thousands off the unemployment roles here at home. Of course, big business would complain! They would say that "profits would drop, stock prices would drop." But we are talking about "shared sacrifice."
Selling the postal service to private enterprise, then introducing a "residentual access tax on commerically oriented direct mail" would generate massive revenue. I can imagine what the postal workers union would say about that one! "What if U.P.S. got rid of our overfunded pension in favor or a minimal annuity?" It goes back to "shared sacrifice."
What about the direct mail companies? They never had a problem with their "bulk mailing permits!"
Striking Phyler versus Doe would remove masses of illegal aliens from entitlement rolls. "How heartless! How draconian," they would say! This "shared sacrifice" would impact children! Never mind that they are in the country illegally!
Would these provisions be enough to make up the difference? Possibly! It would be close enough to merit a study. Meanwhile, the average American would know that there were alternatives. Alternatives to a gasoline tax, an increased income tax, a "value added tax," or the elimination of a deduction currently enjoyed.
In essence, the Tea Party, a loosely constructed army of Americans from coast-to-coast, united in their quest for fiscal sanity would have their ordnance; in the form of the "E" Amendment. The "E" Amendment would quietly remove obstacles. These "obstacles" can be defined as dogmatic politicians and nuisance lawsuits that would attempt to protect an unsustainable system of spending money that we don't have.
The "unholy alliance" between the Tea Party and the left might actualize in the form of newly hatched "Eagles for America." The Tea Party advocates foreign military intervention only with Congressional authorization. This could translate to "no nation building, no foreign give-a-ways." Establishment Republicans wince at this thought. "Eagles" are on board with it and go one step further: "after we balance the budget, return any surplus to the states on the condition that the money is used to facilitate four-year public higher education for qualified students."
The idea is based on "charity beginning at home." While we may be investing in countries for the purpose of "protecting our national interests," the question becomes, "what" is defined as "our?" Americans may have different ideas regarding our "national interests." To many, affordable higher education at home may take on a higher priority than substidizing a foreign government.
Thus, the Tea Party becomes more than a "fringe element" of the Republican party. In effect, we are seeing a formitable coalition emerging that strives for fiscal sanity coupled with the notion that all Americans are "relevant and significant."
It puts one in awe to imagine how fast this thing could develop.
Friday, May 27, 2011
No Romney!
Establishment Republicans must be smiling!
After carefully, deliberately testing the water, it appears that Governor Romney is finally going to drop the other shoe in New Hampshire next week. Not that anyone is surprised!
The former Massachusetts governor brings hefty creditials to the table. He has a deep private sector background. He has executive experience. He has money. He has an organization. He has name recognition. He's a clean living family man. He looks like a Television anchor man. On paper, he sounds like the perfect opponent to take on Barack Obama in 2012. What more could Republicans want?
These attributes notwithstanding, Mitt Romney is perceived by many as the "slick, rich guy." He is not someone most of America can identify with. And there are some questions. Such as, "how does a professed conservative get elected Governor in probably the most liberal state in America. True, people in Massachusetts are quick to identify problem candidates and even quicker to elect alternatives. That may have been the key to Scott Brown's upset win. William Weld won the Governor's mansion in 1991 after his Democratic opponent's corruption became known. Weld may be Romney's true reflection: fiscally conservative, socially progressive. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between Weld and 1992 Democratic Presidential candidate, Paul Tsongas. Tsongas referred to himself as a "pro-business liberal." Could this be an accurate description of Mitt Romney?
No doubt, Romney is business friendly. Banks and Wall Street will cast their lot his way. They have seen the alternative. It is a given that Romney will pick up semi-affluent independents who voted for Obama in 2008. The real question looming is "how will he do with the party base?"
I recall talking to a Georgia Republican who declared Romney "was simply too slick for me." Does that suggest that he would vote for Obama? No. It does hint, however, that he might stay home. This would also be the case for many "Reagan Democrats." They are registered Democrat but generally vote GOP in the national elections. Exceptions abound. But many have already decided that they will not vote for Obama. So why not Romney?
A devout Evangelical friend told me that he would vote for Romney if the alternative were Obama. But he would do it "while holding his nose." This was after acknowledging that Romney was a "good moral person."
What about Latinos? Mitt scored some points with Tom Tancredo and his friends when he proclaimed that illegal aliens needed to "get in line and wait their turn." This is the position of the American majority. But how will he fare with Hispanics? Not to mention other immigrants? Does he have an alternative?
Amazingly, the Massachusetts health care law could work in his favor. Because it was a state instigated fare, it would be easy enough to say that "we need to dump what Democrats voted in because something like this can only work if initiated on the state level." There are holes in that argument for certain. Beginning with the idea of government run health care. Conservatives would be outraged. Moderates would find such a position disarming. It may be the best position altogether; if the goal if to repeal Obamacare!
Where would the votes come from? Romney's people insist they can win Michigan, Ohio and Florida. There could be some credence to that conclusion. Michigan lost a huge chunk of it's population during the recession. Much of it came from the Detroit area. Most of those departing were Democrats. Ohio's economy isn't happening. With the governer and House Speaker in his corner, it could be interesting. A large part of Florida is under employed and underwater with their mortgages. A business savvy player like Mitt Romney would be seen as their lifeboat.
Overall, it comes down to the idea that people will vote for "the lesser of two evils." Romney's strength is the economy. He at least talks tough on national defense. Some of his views are murky. Would he support Paul Ryan's budget plan? What can be done to make social security solvent? Does he favor eliminating the education department? Others, such as the need for a domestic energy policy are clearly defined. The real question would be "can he win the general election?"
Obama's game plan against Romney is highly predictable. It will be "class warfare." The "rich Romney against the people." And who who will be christened the "people's champion?" Who will be the "advocate of the little guy?" Who will be called the "friend of the common man?" You can anticipate the media bias that's coming.
People tend to look inward when pulling that voting lever. The politics of resentment can be a potent weapon. Obama has it down to a science. Romney, unfortunately has no counter.
After carefully, deliberately testing the water, it appears that Governor Romney is finally going to drop the other shoe in New Hampshire next week. Not that anyone is surprised!
The former Massachusetts governor brings hefty creditials to the table. He has a deep private sector background. He has executive experience. He has money. He has an organization. He has name recognition. He's a clean living family man. He looks like a Television anchor man. On paper, he sounds like the perfect opponent to take on Barack Obama in 2012. What more could Republicans want?
These attributes notwithstanding, Mitt Romney is perceived by many as the "slick, rich guy." He is not someone most of America can identify with. And there are some questions. Such as, "how does a professed conservative get elected Governor in probably the most liberal state in America. True, people in Massachusetts are quick to identify problem candidates and even quicker to elect alternatives. That may have been the key to Scott Brown's upset win. William Weld won the Governor's mansion in 1991 after his Democratic opponent's corruption became known. Weld may be Romney's true reflection: fiscally conservative, socially progressive. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between Weld and 1992 Democratic Presidential candidate, Paul Tsongas. Tsongas referred to himself as a "pro-business liberal." Could this be an accurate description of Mitt Romney?
No doubt, Romney is business friendly. Banks and Wall Street will cast their lot his way. They have seen the alternative. It is a given that Romney will pick up semi-affluent independents who voted for Obama in 2008. The real question looming is "how will he do with the party base?"
I recall talking to a Georgia Republican who declared Romney "was simply too slick for me." Does that suggest that he would vote for Obama? No. It does hint, however, that he might stay home. This would also be the case for many "Reagan Democrats." They are registered Democrat but generally vote GOP in the national elections. Exceptions abound. But many have already decided that they will not vote for Obama. So why not Romney?
A devout Evangelical friend told me that he would vote for Romney if the alternative were Obama. But he would do it "while holding his nose." This was after acknowledging that Romney was a "good moral person."
What about Latinos? Mitt scored some points with Tom Tancredo and his friends when he proclaimed that illegal aliens needed to "get in line and wait their turn." This is the position of the American majority. But how will he fare with Hispanics? Not to mention other immigrants? Does he have an alternative?
Amazingly, the Massachusetts health care law could work in his favor. Because it was a state instigated fare, it would be easy enough to say that "we need to dump what Democrats voted in because something like this can only work if initiated on the state level." There are holes in that argument for certain. Beginning with the idea of government run health care. Conservatives would be outraged. Moderates would find such a position disarming. It may be the best position altogether; if the goal if to repeal Obamacare!
Where would the votes come from? Romney's people insist they can win Michigan, Ohio and Florida. There could be some credence to that conclusion. Michigan lost a huge chunk of it's population during the recession. Much of it came from the Detroit area. Most of those departing were Democrats. Ohio's economy isn't happening. With the governer and House Speaker in his corner, it could be interesting. A large part of Florida is under employed and underwater with their mortgages. A business savvy player like Mitt Romney would be seen as their lifeboat.
Overall, it comes down to the idea that people will vote for "the lesser of two evils." Romney's strength is the economy. He at least talks tough on national defense. Some of his views are murky. Would he support Paul Ryan's budget plan? What can be done to make social security solvent? Does he favor eliminating the education department? Others, such as the need for a domestic energy policy are clearly defined. The real question would be "can he win the general election?"
Obama's game plan against Romney is highly predictable. It will be "class warfare." The "rich Romney against the people." And who who will be christened the "people's champion?" Who will be the "advocate of the little guy?" Who will be called the "friend of the common man?" You can anticipate the media bias that's coming.
People tend to look inward when pulling that voting lever. The politics of resentment can be a potent weapon. Obama has it down to a science. Romney, unfortunately has no counter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)