Quick Notes: Your Turn

I am looking at making a few changes here at Political Friends. Over the next couple of weeks there are some small changes I want to incorporate here, and I am thinking of making some larger ones. I have always wanted this site to be about political discussion. My goal is to keep people from both sides of the aisle coming back to discuss the issues of the day. To that end, I want to revamp a few things around here. This is where you come in.


In this post, I am looking for comments about what you like or don't like about this site. What would you like to see different. Is there a particular topic you feel should be covered more? Is there something you think I have wrong that you are dying for one more debate about? Same rules of no insulting, but anything else is open. I appreciate any input you have, and thanks for reading Political Friends.

Hope and Change in Iran?

Imagine a country ruled by an older group of religious experts. They decide the path for the nation. They decide who can and can’t run in elections. They also decide who wins those elections. Now let’s pretend that during the recent election, the citizens of this country get fed up with this religious council’s domination of their lives. They decide to protest in the streets. These protesters are sometimes beaten or shot by military snipers under the control of the religious council. The religious leaders force all foreign journalists to stay under guard in their hotels. They close off access to the outside world for the protestors by shutting down or restricting access to the internet and cell phones. The protestors, led by students and women, continue to demand their voice be heard in spite of increasing violence. As the protests continue, the religious group gets more violent and they begin snatching protest leaders in the dead of night from schools, homes, and even hospitals where they seek treatment for the wounds inflicted by the state controlled police. In this imaginary world, where would a Democratic President, one who campaigned on “hope” and “change”, one who got his rise into politics as a community organizer side? Surely he would work with the students seeking change in their own government through peaceful means.


President Obama has shown us that the obvious answer isn’t always the one he will pick. In the not so thinly veiled references to Iran above, President Obama has decided to align with the Mullahs and with President Ahmadinejad. In trying to look neutral, in trying to avoid “meddling” in Iran, the President has given a victory to the ruling clerics. A silent American President helps the Mullahs and hurts the students.


However, as of this writing, it is not too late. President Obama can still align himself with the protesters and the side of democracy in Iran. He can send a clear message that the United States will support the democratic process in Iran. And he can make a difference. Instead of inviting Iranian ambassadors to a Fourth of July cookout, call opposition leaders in Iran and check on their safety. Instead of sending mixed messages about the “debate” in Iran, get prepaid phone cards into the hands of students and protesters. Instead of saying we can’t be seen as meddlers in Iran, demand international journalists be given the freedom to cover the news inside of Iran.


President Obama can work to promote democracy in Iran and help U.S. interests at the same time, and without using the military. If the protesters have their way, there could be a very different Iran in a short time. If there is regime change from these protests, it will be regime change brought about by the people of Iran, not the United States. However, the protests can’t continue without support from the outside world. There are people friendly to the U.S. inside of Iran. If we support their efforts towards democracy, they may create a friendlier attitude towards our nation.

What if.....?

Imagine this as a commercial for health insurance....







What if health insurance companies competed like this? What if Congress realized health insurance isn't a "one size fits all" solution?

Health Care Part Two

This post is my second post discussing health care and health insurance. In the first post, I discussed a few ground rules that seem to get forgotten whenever politicians start talking about health insurance. These were 1) you don't have a right to health insurance, and 2) doctors, nurses, hospitals, and health insurance companies are in business to make a profit. I also pointed out that the jury is still out regarding some of the early initiatives of President Obama and the new Congress. The health care we receive in the United States is some of the best care in the world. Why rush to "fix" this if we aren't sure the people in Washington are up to the task?


In this installment, I want to look at a few problems with the current health care proposal by the Democrats. The current bill, referred to as the Kennedy-Dodd bill, is incomplete. An incomplete bill won't stop Democrats. They have introduced the bill and are trying to get it discussed and voted on anyway.


The non-partisan CBO has estimated the price tag of the bill as currently written at just over $1 Trillion. Democrats have complained that it isn't fair to put a price tag on this bill when it isn't complete. I would tell Democrats to finish the bill, let the CBO score it, then debate it. Another fun fact of the Kennedy-Dodd bill: it won't cover everyone who isn't covered today. I have heard different commentators claim as many as 49 million people don't have health insurance. The CBO says that not all of these uninsured will be covered under the Kennedy-Dodd bill. If we must cover everyone, why doesn't this bill cover everyone?


The Kennedy-Dodd bill will also include some sort of "public option" health insurance. It is hard to tell if this option would be paid for by taxes people who get employer provided health insurance, or by increasing our deficit again. Either way, a public option would eventually drive private insurance companies out of business. Senator Dodd has stated frankly that private insurance companies need a public version to reduce the profit of insurance companies. If the public option doesn't have to make a profit, how is a private insurance company going to make a profit or stay in business?


One of the biggest flaws with Kennedy-Dodd is that it is 615 pages long. Very few Senators (Republican or Democrat) are going to read a 615 page bill before voting on it. There have been a number of problems with the Omnibus spending bill congress passed a few months back for this exact same reason. Lawmakers don't read the bill until after it passes.


Kennedy-Dodd is a bad bill for a number of reasons: it costs to much, it won't cover as many people as the authors say it will, and it will drive private insurance out of business. Do you want a politician deciding what health care is most "efficient" for you? We may need health care reform. Kennedy-Dodd isn't it.

The Healthcare Debate, Part One

President Barack Obama and many Democrats would like to implement is sweeping healthcare reform. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the Presidents health care reform at around $1.5 Trillion. They have discussed universal health care, single-payer health care, and government run healthcare. For the most part, these three terms are interchangeable. Republicans introduced their own healthcare reform prior to the Democrats and are waiting for the Democrat version to be introduced. Other ideas that have been batted about include taxing existing health care, health care credits, allowing individuals to use Social Security to pay for healthcare, and health insurance co-operatives.

Before any meaningful discussion of health care can begin it might be helpful to review a couple of facts that seem to get lost in this discussion. First, and maybe most importantly, you do not have a right to health insurance. Health insurance is not required by law, and is not listed in the Bill of Rights. Whenever anyone takes a new job, or is evaluating job benefits, you need to weigh the health benefits just as you would the starting salary. This seems like remedial politics, but I think most Americans have forgotten this. There was a time when people evaluated the benefits of the job, as well as the salary, when trying to decide where to work.

Secondly, Doctors, Hospitals, and Insurance Companies are generally in business to make a profit. Think about it this way, when you go to work, do you expect a pay check, or do you let your employer keep your pay check? Most of us work to pay our bills. Some of us even enjoy our job. At the end of the day, we work to pay bills, put a roof over our head, and take care of our family. Doctors and Insurance agents are the same way. Once again, this sounds like remedial civics, but I am not sure House Democrats, or the President, understand this. Profit is good. Getting paid is good.

If we keep these rules in mind, any sort of Universal health care, single payer system, or government run insurance agency, starts to look a little silly. Supporters of these options want to tax people who work in order to provide health care for all. Remember, you do not have a right to health care. Therefore, the President is really asking to tax the middle and upper class in order to provide a luxury item to everyone. Any government run healthcare will drive private firms out of business. Why? The government doesn't try to make a profit. They also get to steal money from the taxpayers whenever they wish. No private firm can compete against that.

The President and his staff insist that we must pass health care reform today. This isn't the case. While not everyone is happy with their health insurance, many are. We have been told that our health insurance spending is a crisis. If we don't fix it, it will be a ticking time bomb on our economy. But we have been here before. We were told that TARP, the Stimulus plan, and the Omnibus spending bills all had to be passed as well, or the results would destroy our economy. These were all passed in spite of their massive pork. What happened? The jury is still out. Most of the Stimulus money hasn't been spent. The day after TARP was passed, the Treasury started using it in ways they never informed Congress they were going to do. The White House projected unemployment would max out at 8%. Today, it has passed 9.4% and is still rising. We still don't know what is going to be the result of these massive spending programs, and the Democrats want us to take on more spending. In our economy, do we really need to raise taxes to provide a luxury item to people?

The Perfect Storm

Rarely do you see The Daily Kos, Michelle Malkin, Red State, and U.S. News and World Report agree on something. So when all of these are arguing against a Democrat sponsored bailout of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), we should probably take a minute to hear them out.


This started with a commitment by President Obama to send $108 Billion to the IMF. Now Rahm Emanual and Nancy Pelosi are trying to bully House Democrats into voting for a war funding bill with an amendment attached to provide $108 Billion to bail out the International Monetary Fund. Nancy Pelosi wants Democrats to sneak this bailout through becuase no one believes a bill bailing out the IMF could make it on it's own. The American public has reached their limit of bailouts. Strategists on both sides are predicting losses for elected officials voting for bailouts in 2010.


The funny part is the coalition lining up to defeat this. Red State has listed the names and contact info for the Democrats most likely to be flipped. Eric at Red State is encouraging everyone to call them. Peter Roff writing at U.S. News and World Report has listed the top ten reasons to vote against this. The Daily Kos has gone so far as to write supportive profiles of Democrats likely to defeat those Democrats who might vote for this bill.


In this age of new politics, Republicans and Democrats can unite together to tell Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi Americans are tired of bailouts. We are tired of bailouts, and we don't want to bailout European banks. If Pelosi thinks this is important, let her put this bailout on a bill by itself. If she can't get the votes for it by iteslf, don't try to sneak it through.

Three Great Minds

Some of you may remember that I attended the "Obama First 100 Days" put on by a local talk radio station. While at the event, I got my picture taken with Dennis Prager and Bill Bennett. I thought my readers would enjoy a picture of three great conservative minds...

I really enjoy the event. It was my first time attending a large event like this with a number of conservative commentators. I hope I am able to do it again in the future. I would encourage everyone to attend events like this in order to become more knowledgeable on the events of the day.

Quick Notes: Special BHO Edition

For the first time in my adult life since the inauguration in January, the President has done something that has made me feel truly liberated. I know I criticize President and GM CEO Barack Hussein "Hopey-Change" Obama a lot on this site. In his honor, this edition of Quick Notes , and special 300th blog post of Political Friends, is dedicated exclusively to him!

President Obama's New Found Faith. You may remember during the campaign last year unscrupulous Republicans and Conservatives had the Audacity to use then junior Senator Obama's middle name, Hussein. As Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report on ABC News, the Obama campaign even had to address this on their Fight the Smears website saying:

"Barack Obama is a committed Christian. He was sworn into the Senate on his family Bible. He has regularly attended church with his wife and daughters for years. But shameful, shadowy attackers have been lying about Barack's religion, claiming he is a Muslim instead of a committed Christian. When people fabricate stories about someone's faith to denigrate them politically, that's an attack on people of all faiths. Make sure everyone you know is aware of this deception."

During the campaign, Senator Obama even stated his father was agnostic. Now the White House is playing up not just his middle name, but his Muslim connections. Again, according to ABC:

"During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said 'the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.'"

While I am quite excited about the freedom to use the President (CEO's?) middle name, I am a little concerned about the President's comments that America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. The President was very specific that the number of American Muslim's living in the US makes it one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. That simply isn't true. As Toby Harnden writes on the UK Telegraph blog, we are either the 34^th or 48^th largest Muslim country if you actually do the math (depending on whose head counts you use). We aren't even in the top ten. Is this a lie, bad number crunching, or simple pandering?

Nuclear Power is OK for Iran, and UAE, but not the United States. President Obama has been very careful with what he has said regarding nuclear power in the United States. Any serious clean energy plan for our nation must include nuclear energy. According to Newsweek, nuclear energy accounts for 20% of our energy, and 70% of our nation's emission free energy . However, President Obama hasn't come out in favor of nuclear power, and by moving to shut down Yucca Mountain, he has made it much more difficult to increase our nuclear energy production.

Just because the President doesn't like nuclear power in the United States doesn't mean he believes it isn't good for the United Arab Emirates and Iran. In May, he proceeded with a deal to allow the United States to help the UAE become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power plant. The construction work in the UAE associated with this deal could provide U.S. companies with $41 Billion in contracts.

President Barack Hussein Obama has said, and reiterated in the last few days that he feels Iran has some right to nuclear power, just not nuclear weapons. I can't begin to cover all of the problems with this statement. The top two: Do you really think Iran will accept nuclear power and not create a nuclear weapon? What position does this put our ally Israel in?

President Obama quiet on murder? On Sunday, when Dr. George Tiller was shot at his church, the White House was quick to release a statement. In part it said that the President was "shocked and outraged" by the church shooting of a doctor who was known to perform late-term abortions. He went on to say, "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence." So far, I agree with the President. However, the President puts himself in a very bad position when he comments on something like this. Why? Because what happens when another person is murdered and the President is silent on it?

For example, the next day, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot two Army soldiers in front of a recruiting office in Arkansas. One soldier was killed, the other wounded. Muhammad shot the soldiers because of what he felt the Army had done to Muslims. Details have come out today that Muhammad may have had other targets in mind based on information the FBI and Homeland Security Department found on a computer "linked" to Muhamad. As of this writing, the President has been silent on the murder and shooting of Army soldiers on American soil by a man who had converted to Islam. Whether he is intentionally placing different values on the life of Dr. Tiller versus Private William Long or Private Quinton Ezeagwula, he is giving the appearance that he doesn't consider these individuals, or their murders, equal.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

If you have been following the major news outlets this week (Fox News included), you know a few things about the judge President Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court:

1. She is a She.
2. She is Hispanic.
3. Republicans had better watch out if they question anything about her.

Republicans have tripped over themselves saying they will not criticize her based on her sex or ethnic background. I believe there are a few good reasons to deny Judge Sotomayor the highest court in the land. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. If my criticisms would be valid against a white Republican, then they are valid against Sonia Sotomayor.

Her previous decisions do raise some real question marks, specifically her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. The city of New Haven, Connecticut uses an exam to qualify firefighters for promotions. This test is examined ahead of time to make sure it is "race neutral" and it is administered due to an agreement between the city and the union. Traditionally, firefighters who pass the examine are promoted. On one specific occasion, 16 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter passed the exam. They were not promoted because no black firefighters passed the test. The city decided they wouldn't promote anyone if there were no successful black applicants. The firefighters sued believing they had been the victims of racism. The lower court dismissed the case, and Judge Sotomayor heard it as an appeals judge and agreed with the lower court. In the coming weeks you will hear more about this case for three reasons: the appeal of the case is going to be decided by the Supreme Court in June; the decision, coupled with other comments by Sotomayor, does not pain a flattering picture of the Judge; and another Hispanic Judge, Jose Cabranes, wrote an opinion questioning Sotomayor's decision.

She has made some very questionable remarks, in public and on the record, regarding her judicial philosophy. This is important because her comments are fair game in confirmation hearings. She shouldn't be asked how she will decide on gay marriage, abortion, or school prayer, but she can be asked what she meant when she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." President Obama and Secretary Gibbs have both tried to clarify these remarks.

Perhaps even more troubling are her remarks in 2005 stating that policy is made at the appeals court. Policy and law are not made in court. State and Federal Legislators make law, not judges. Judges interpret that law. They decide what is and what isn't out of bounds. They don't decide where that foul line is.

Republicans should challenge Judge Sotomayor on these points, and others that may come out over the next few weeks. Democrats and the Media would do well to look over these issues as well. Perhaps they should stop telling Republicans what is fair criticism, and look at Judge Sotomayor's record.

Why Do We Have CAFE Standards?

Last week President Obama had a major press conference to announce a proposed new national fuel economy standard for vehicles. This new standard will average out to around 35 miles per gallon. This new standard implements some policies from the Bush administration years ahead of their original target date and creates a national corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard.

CAFE standards started in the late 70’s and were specifically targeted at passenger cars. At the time they were created to lessen our use of foreign oil. They have failed miserably with this goal. According to the Heritage Foundation, the US has increased its foreign oil consumption from 32 percent to 52 percent of oil used since the standards were adopted. The new time lines announced last week will affect the 2016 model year cars. These standards will require that all of a particular class of vehicles sold by any manufacture average out to meet the target miles per gallon. The footprint of the vehicle is the best way to think of the different classes. If Ford sales 1,000 cars in a certain footprint, those 1000 vehicles must average out to have the target fuel efficiency. If Ford sales a lot of cars with lower efficiency, then the other cars must have a much higher efficiency in order for the 1000 vehicles to average out to the required mandate.

There are trade offs to higher fuel economy. According to the Obama administration, the new national standards may add around $1300 to the purchase price of your vehicle. This is only an estimate, and some groups claim the real price is higher. There is also only so much fuel economy you can get from an engine. The rest has to made up by making the car lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has expressed concerns that the lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles result in more fatalities every year. CAFE standards have resulted in an estimated 1,300 to 3,900 deaths per year, depending on the year and the source. Some environmentalists would argue that these deaths are acceptable if we lower the amount of pollutants discharged each year to help solve global warming. The truth is that CAFE standards won’t solve global warming. The next time you drive to work and see a convoy of tractor trailer trucks, or pass a construction site, remember those vehicles are exempted from CAFE standards due to their size. The CAFE mandate also argues against itself. The theory is that more fuel efficient vehicles reduce our need for oil and gas. In reality, fuel efficient vehicles make driving cheaper. Cheaper driving means more vacations, more car trips, and more gas used.

Personally I don’t think the government should be telling auto makers what fuel efficiency their vehicles must achieve. The government doesn't mandate XM radio (yet), why fuel efficiency? President Obama has never run a business, and I don’t believe there are any automotive engineers in Congress. The government should try to address other problems. Perhaps after the economy is fixed, the nuclear problems of Iran and North Korea are resolved, and terrorist stop trying to kill us I will change my mind. Until then, I think the government needs to keep its eyes on the ball, and stop worrying about whether my car gets 20, 30, or 40 miles per gallon.

Quick Notes: Political Friends.

I wanted to post a quick update on what is going on and to apologize for not answering comments this weekend. Work has been a little busy this weekend so it has eaten into my blogging time. I spent 19 hours at work yesterday for example. In addition to that, I chose to simply ignore this blog over the last couple of days. Go figure.

There have been some good comments (both for and against) my last two posts, and I want to give them the attention they deserve. I hope to catch up on my responses tomorrow. This week, I want to write blogs on C.A.F.E. standards and on Minnesota's governor. Consider this your fair warning if you want to do your homework ahead of time.

I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend, and look for two new posts later this week!

Prager University

I attended the "Obama the First 100 Days" tonight featuring Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, and Hugh Hewitt. There were a lot of interesting topics discussed, and I think I got a few ideas for future posts.

At the end of the night, Dennis Prager asked everyone to check out a new project of his called Prager University. It's on You Tube. I looked at it when I got home and was impressed with the first course. I don't typically listen to Prager, but I still found this very interesting. The clip is five minutes long, and I am keeping this post short so you will have time to watch it. Enjoy!

Book Review: The 5000 Year Leap

Quite possibly the best book I have ever read on the U. S. Constitution and what the Founders intended.

If I could only write one sentence about The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World by W. Cleon Skousen, that would be it. If I could add a second sentence, it would be, "The book is easy to understand and is intended as a High School text book." If you are looking for an easy to read book on the Constitution, this is it.

The 5000 Year Leap was written because Mr. Skousen wanted a book that, "…catalogue[d] the ingredients of the Founding Fathers phenomenal success formula so it would be less complex and easier to digest." This combined with recognition of mistakes elected representatives were making inspired the book. It is written as a high school text book, and does a very good job of explaining the fundamentals of our government. Mr. Skousen came up with 28 principles that represented what the Founders were trying to accomplish.

Mr. Skousen shows a deep understanding of the Constitution. For example, under the chapter The 17^th Principle: Checks and Balances, there is a complete list of checks and balances found in the U.S. Constitution. There are 18 of them.

The book does not specifically attack one party or another. I am not sure the Republican or Democratic Parties are mentioned at all in this book. Right and Left are mentioned, but not in the concept of Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Mr. Skousen uses these terms as he claims the founders would have understood them. According the political theory at the time of the Constitution, government ranged from the "left" or complete tyranny imposed by a monarchy to the "right" or absolute anarchy with no government at all. The founders intention was to get the United States government in the exact center of this political spectrum. Our founders thought of our government as a three headed eagle, with the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive branches all being represented by one head of the eagle. In addition, one wing represented the "Problem Solving Wing" or what government could do with unlimited funds. The other wing represented "The Conservation Wing" or the wing responsible for making the best use of all funds available. If both these wings work together, the eagle flies straight and doesn't lean towards tyranny or anarchy.

The 5000 Year Leap quotes the founders extensively. If you read the book with an eye to today's politics, it is easy to see that our elected officials (Republican and Democratic alike) have either forgotten the lessons listed here, or never knew them. Some of the chapters may cause you to question your own political beliefs and what you have thought of the U.S. Constitution. If you don't believe Mr. Skousen, it is easy to follow his footnotes to do your own homework and make your own decisions.

I would beg anyone with a high school age student to buy The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World and ask them to read it. Every voter should read this book before they head to the next ballot box. Every elected official should be forced to read this before being sworn into office. If you only buy one book that I review on this website, this is the book.

****

If you like this post, you may also like:

Book Review: Glenn Beck's Common Sense

The Repugnant Nature of the Minimum Wage

Of Government and Men: Introduction

Godfather Obama and the UAW

This past week has shown us that President Obama will do anything to protect the UAW. The President is willing to break the law, strong arm banks with TARP money, and use the "…full force of the White House press corp…" to destroy any dissent. The President isn't interested in doing what is right, or what is legal, but what protects the UAW.

As Chrysler heads into Bankruptcy court, we should all pay attention. GM (commonly referred to now as Government Motors) is likely to head the same way, and we may see more TARP companies or banks go into bankruptcy before it's all over. Whatever happens to Chrysler is going to set precedent for future bailouts and bankruptcy's.

President Obama attempted to force a bankruptcy down the throats of Chrysler's creditors that violated contracts those creditors had in place. He hasn't given up on this and is actively working on it. Secured creditors loaned money to Chrysler with a contract that stated if Chrysler sold off its assets, these secured creditors would be paid back, dollar for dollar, before any other creditor is paid back. President Obama is attempting to violate this contract simply because it suits his political will. He believes these creditors should only get 28 cents for every dollar they loaned Chrysler. The UAW would get 55% of the entire company.

In a related story, you may have read that some of the banks that received TARP money want to pay it back to the Government. President Obama won't let them. Why? The stated reason is that these banks need to pass a "stress test" to prove they are sound enough that they don't need the money. This is way above and beyond simply bailing out banks. When last I looked, President Obama has no experience running a bank, or a company. Who is he to decide when a bank can or can't pay back the money? More importantly, this money isn't the President's money. The money loaned to these banks, and to the auto industry, is tax payer money. The President is suppose to be a steward of the tax payer's money. Right now, he is failing at that job. Instead of protecting the tax payer, President Obama is controling these banks so they won't object to his version of Chrysler's bankruptcy. Imagine if President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Karl Rove had cooked up a scheme like this...

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this entire story is the threat by President Obama to destroy Chrysler's creditors in the press if they don't submit to his will. This is the classic Chicago political move of "making them an offer they can't refuse". One creditor has gone on the record stating they were threatened by the White House. How many more creditor's have been threatened and are afraid of President Obama, Press Secretary Gibbs, and the Democratic PR machine? These thug style political manuevers got him elected in Chicago, and he is trying to use them to get what he wants now.

President Obama's tinkering with the auto industry threatens property and contract law in our nation. The precedent it starts is that if you have a contract, its only valid as long as the current President says so. This is not the way our government is allowed to operate under the U.S. Constitution.

There are a number of good articles covering this. I have provided links below to the most recent ones I have read.

The Big Business of Big Labor from the Washington Examiner

Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics from CBS News

An Offer You Can't Refuse by the Economist

If you think I am simply a crazy conservative, go read those three articles and see if you still think so.

The Specter Defection

There has been a lot of commentary in the media over Senator Arlen Specters move from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Many are portraying this as a wakeup call in some form or another. One of the best pieces I have read on Specter's move is by Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard. Mrs. Emery uses Specter's defection as a call for more of a big tent in the Republican Party. I think she is right.

Mrs. Emery points out a fact that many voters on the right and the left forget: Conservatism is a movement and not a Party, while the Republican Party is not a movement. The goal of a movement is to advance a set of ideals. The goal of a political party is to get more people elected and to implement a political platform. Republicans need Conservatives to win national elections. Conservatives need Republicans (even the not so conservative version) in order to get their ideals acted on. As good as Mrs. Emery's article is, there are two points she and most commentators seem to be missing.

First, many elected Republicans have pushed the parties platform aside. Elected Republicans have forgotten the Contract with America, and have become as big government as their Democratic counterparts. Many voters who traditionally vote Republican are upset with that. To make matters worse, since the 2006 elections, the Republican party has had trouble convincing voters that they want to get back to the Party of the 90's, let alone Regan's big tent party of the 80's. Many Republicans talk about attacking new voters. But they phrase this in how they wish to change the party. Republicans should be looking at ways they can phrase their message or better communicate it to traditionally Democratic voters.

The other point that seems to get lost is why Specter changed parties. Mrs. Emery touches on it, but then forgets it. Arlen Specter was most likely going to lose his primary battle. He looked at the numbers, and in order to stay in the Senate, switched parties. He is very likely to get reelected as a Democrat. In my opinion, this speaks to a larger problem. Specter has been in politics since the 60's. He started his career as a Democrat, and switched to the Republican party after his first election. He has been in the Senate since 1981. He is approaching 30 years in the Senate. Mrs. Emery and other Republicans seem to think it is tragic that he would loose his primary. I think it would have been a good thing. Do we really need Senators in office for 30 years? One of our problems in the Congress is that these older Senators are more concerned with winning another term than they are with fulfilling their role as the outlined by the Constitution.

Specter's defection should be a wake up call for the Republican Party. I think Republicans needed to be doing some soul searching right now for a number of reasons. However, I believe Specters defection should call us all to examine a different issue: Term Limits in Congress and the Senate. Specter switched parties to stay in office. Do we really need any Representative or Senator in office for thirty years? I don't think so. If a President is term limited to two terms, why should a Senator (or Representative) be able to make a full career of sitting in the Senate or the House?

Book Review: Ted, White, and Blue

My wife and I were watching Glenn Beck one night when Ted Nugent was on as a guest. The Motor City Madman was on the whole night talking about America, Politics, and our Society. During the course of the night, they talked about his book, Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, and I knew I had to read it. The book did not disappoint me.

This is not Ted Nugent's first book. It is his sixth. The book covers a wide range of topics, and is his personal manifesto. As such, he makes no apologies for anything he says in the book. Some of it is fun, some of it is insightful, and some people will be insulted by some of the stuff they read. The truth sometimes hurts. Through the course of the book, Mr. Nugent gives his recommendations and ideas on a number of issues including: Politics, Religion, War, Taxes, Immigration, Unemployment, and Global Warming. This is by no means and all inclusive lists. There are seventeen chapters in the book covering seventeen topics. Ted, White, and Blue also has a decent index, and thirteen pages of notes and references.

Ted Nugent surprised me by his depth of knowledge on a number of the topics. I am a supporter of nuclear energy, and believe we should be building more reactors. Environmentalists concerned with reactors always ask, "What will you do with the waste?" Ted Nugent has a great response:

"Another unfounded fear is based on the waste that nuclear power produces. The overwhelming majority of the waste from nuclear power plants could be stored in your backyard with no risk to you. It is totally harmless. You could pick it up with your bare hands and not suffer any ill effects. Of the remaining nuclear waste, most of it could be recycled and used again but peanuts-for-brains Jimmy Carter banned the recycling and use of nuclear waste in 1977. Fortunately, the American voters banned Jimmy in 1980. Carter's baseless decision means that all nuclear waste we have ever produced must be stored in a nuclear waste repository such as Yucca Mountain…"

According to the material cited in Ted, White, and Blue, there is enough nuclear waste material in the United States, that if recycled, could power every household in our country for twelve years. That sounds like a good idea to me. Another unique idea from his book revolves around two hot button issues: Health Care and Illegal Immigration. There are a number of different studies that try to calculate the health care costs to American Taxpayers for treating illegal immigrants in emergency rooms. If someone goes to a hospital and needs emergency care, they have to be treated, even if it is something minor like a hang nail or a cough. Someone has to foot the bill for this "free" health care. Mr. Nugent suggests deducting the cost of the health care from the foreign aid we would normally send to the illegal immigrants home country.

Ted, White, and Blue is a fun read. While it does talk a little about Ted Nugent's biography, it is really a discussion of solutions for current problems. I would highly recommend it as an entertaining read that may provide some unique view points and solutions you hadn't considered before.

Why I go to the Tea Parties

There have been a lot of comments on here and in an assortment of media outlets regarding the people who attend Tea Parties. Some of the worst comments are those like Jeanine Garofolo saying that Tea Party attendees are only protesting a black man being President. The racist comments are uncommon, but not as uncommon as they should be. What seems more prevalent is the belief that the Tea Parties are organized by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Fox News and that the goal is to overthrow the government. Anyone who says this hasn't spent any real time talking to those who attend the parties.

While kooks are often attracted to protests (both on the left and the right), the majority of people I have seen at the Tea Parties are there because they are upset by the spending going on in government right now. Many were mad at President Bush and the previous Congress for TARP and the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. They are also mad at President Obama and the current Congress for continuing these bailouts, and for the ever increasing budgets and spending programs. Many of the attendees realize there is no way to continue this level of spending without dramatically raising taxes on everyone. The chart below was published originally in the Washington Post, and has been researched and defended by the Heritage Foundation. It shows the deficit under President Bush and the projected deficit under President Obama.

Whether you believe the White House or the Congressional Budget Office, neither of the above estimates are good. The spending in Washington is way out of control. Every idea in Washington revolves around funding a program, spending money on research, or buying something. There are very few elected officials arguing to cut the budget, and not enough officials arguing to stop the bailouts (auto, credit, or bank). My biggest fear is that the bailouts are going to make things worse, not better. By propping up these industries, we are delaying the day they go through the reforms they need. As painful as those reforms are now, they are going to be much more painful down the road.

I go to the Tea Parties to protest the current levels of spending by our government. This includes President Obama's spending and Congresses spending. I am not there to protest just President Obama. If the protests were about Global Warming or some of the other silly idea's this administration has, I probably wouldn't attend. While these ideas are worthy of debate, and I do debate them here, they aren't as dangerous as the continued spending by Washington. If we continue on the pace the chart above shows, our economy is going to get so bad, cap and trade and national health care won't matter. I can't speak for everyone at the Tea Parties, only myself. I can say that many of the people that I have spoken with at these parties have the same concerns I do, and are worried about the same things. The Tax burden on the American Worker is already too high. Spending like we are seeing in Washington is going to make that tax burden much worse.

I also go to the Tea Parties because I don't believe it is the role of our government to do these things. I don't believe our government should bailout financial companies and car industries. I don't believe we should step in and fire private CEO's. I don't believe the government has a right to interfere in how business pays their employees. Every time the government interferes in these areas, all of our freedoms are diminished. Anytime the government is allowed to save a bank, or a car company, or to fire private employees, it represents a time when the government gets to take control of our lives. I think Americans would be much better off without the government telling them what to do. Do we need some boundaries for companies to operate within? Sure. Do we need the constant intervention created at the end of Bush's term and perpetuated under President Obama? Absolutely not.

As I said, I can't speak for every person at these Tea Parties. I can say most of them are every day Americans who work and send their kids to school. These Americans deserve our respect and they deserve to have their voice heard in Washington. I , and many of the Tea Party attendees, believe Republicans and Democrats have stopped listening to voters. That's not good for anyone.

This post was published at Tea Party Patriots and Political Friends.

Is $100 Million more or less than $8 Billion?

While trying to catch up on politics today, I came across this exchange on the Real Clear Video site (video provided by Sevenload)

Link:

The transcript can be found here. I have to give credit where credit is due. I am often critical of the AP and ABC News both for what I feel is a lack of unbaised coverage. However, both of these reporters brought up excellent questions. After watching the video, I don't think Mr. Gibbs answered the original question. President Obama is trying to show sympathy with the public by cutting $100 Million out of the $3.7 Trillion budget over the next 90 days. Why is that a big deal? The $100 Million won't touch the budget and won't even be a whisper when compared to the deficit. Why should voters be excited about $100 Million? And why did Mr. Gibbs describe $8 Billion as miniscule and now ask for accolades for attempting to cut $100 Million? If Mr. Gibbs can't find the money to cut, why not look for programs like the $7 Billion in the stimulus package to improve broadband coverage nationwide. Surely that isn't important in a down economy.

Back From Vacation!

I have returned from sunny Maui. Tomorrow I must return to work. Hopefully I will be back to regular post in the next couple of days as I bring myself back up to date in the world of politics.

Posted with LifeCast

Maui Tea Party

Having attended a Tea Party in Atlanta a while back, I was very excited when the national tea parties started showing up for Tax Day. I was going to be on vacation, but was able to coordinate with the organizers in Maui to be at their tea party today.



Unlike the last one I went to, the weather was great. I asked around, and I estimate there was probably 200 to 300 people at the event by the time I left. This is pretty amazing because most of the people were residents of Maui. Many of them were complaining about their local representatives.

I have heard today's events reported as "tea parties that were started by conservative bloggers, talk show personalities, and republicans." This isn't true. These tea parties are grass roots movements. The one I attended today was organized by a self proclaimed Democrat. In an email to me, he stated that he has supported a number of liberal groups over the years, but he felt the spending in Washington has really gotten out of hand.

As I am on vacation, I thought most of this post would be some of my favorite pictures from today's event in Maui. This first one made me laugh the most:



Considering this weeks revelation of what the Deparment of Homeland Security thinks of out spoken conservatives, I thought this one was pretty good too:


This sign also appeared at another Tea Party in Lahaina earlier in the day:



One participant was kind enough to let me borrow his sign so I could get a photo of me at the demonstration for my readers: