Changing the Liberal Mindset that Americans Have Unwittingly Come To Accept

I have spent a lot of time listening to Democrats and President Obama in particular, preach about fairness and making people pay their fair share. I have listened to an endless stream of liberals position themselves as federal cherubs who are trying to be little government sponsored guardian angels who just want to make sure that everyone is treated equally and that everyone gets what they deserve. Sometimes I swear I am listening to Tinkerbell talking to Peter freaking Pan, or listening to Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, tell me that if I click the heels of my ruby red slippers together, I will suddenly find a magical rainbow that will lead me to a government provided pot of gold.

What bothers me the most is not that these liberal leprechaun would try to convince people that their American version of socialism would make everything better, but that there are actually Americans who are really dumb enough to believe them.

But it is evidence of the fact that since the days of FDR, Democrats have come to believe not in strong economic policies for America, but rather in the kind of politics that can keep them in power by offering voters a choice between the truth of reality represented by the self determination which Republicans believe in, and the government fantasy version of reality that the left promotes. It is the kind of politics that is rooted in dependency and it is comprised of a formula which seeks to make people believe that things can be easier if they keep Democrats in power because Democrats will give the people a litany of wonderful things by declaring them rights.

They will give you government provided health care, education, food, salaries, and services, and all these gifts will make our lives easier, and better.

It is a vicious cycle which all began by exploiting dependency, a negative which Democrats now try to perpetuate. For Democrats, their formula for electoral success relies mainly upon making more people, more dependent on government goodies so that come Election Day, the voters will embrace rather than bite the liberals hands that the people have literally come to expect to feed them.

Pursuit of this political formula for electoral success has unfortunately had a big impact on many Americans. Without realizing it, many Americans have been brainwashed and come to embrace the liberal mindset which has successfully change the dynamics of American thinking.

Today, thanks to the left, the American constitutional paradigm which was a citizenry that granted limited powers to a federal government, has been forgotten and replaced with the thinking that starts from the premiss which has us now question how much power the government can give the people. It is really all quite insane.

Today we take taxes for granted so much that the debate is not how much the government should take. It is how much of what we earn can we keep. In this day an age we are grateful when a leader like Chris Christie comes along and proposes an across the board state income of 10%. Thanks to liberal propaganda and decades of liberal training, we actually believe that politicians are doing us a favor by lowering our taxes. But the truth is, that it is no favor! It is the only decent thing to do! Yet we have all fallen victim to a liberal agenda which has forced us to think backwards. Whether we realize it or not, liberal thinking has shifted our mindset and so today we thank a politician for allowing us to keep more of our own money, when what we should actually be doing is reprimanding them for not giving us back more of our own money.

It’s time for people to wake up and realize that in America, the people do not exist because of government, government exists because of the people. Americans need to realize that we should not be grateful for how much the government lets us keep, it is the government that should be grateful for what we the people are willing to give to it. Until we all realize that, we will all remain slaves to our government, and nothing more than the real servants to those who are suppose to be the government servants………the elected officials who we thank for allowing us to keep more of our money, and appreciate for giving us the permit and permission s to build a deck on our own private property or to go fishing or camping.

I recently listened to the elf-like liberal Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis was discussing President Obama’s State of the Union address and he told the listening audience that he believed “the rich should pay more”. Other liberals phrase it differently. President Obama likes to say that “the rich should be forced to pay their fair share”. But what I need to know is what is fair and beyond that, who the hell has the right to tell us what is fair? Is Dennis Kucinich the Fairness Fairy?

Fairness is arbitrary and our Constitution did not address fairness. And as far as I known there is no twenty eighth amendment of the Constitution which defines fairness and articulates how government is suppose to legislate fairness. But the Constitution of the United States does address government’s place in our lives and in doing so, it clearly states that we are granted our rights from our creator. And just to make this clear, I need to tell you that the federal government did not create you or I. Barack Obama can not take credit for me. Nor can he legally take my rights away, even though several of his policies already have.

Another thing he should not be able to do is tell me how much I can earn, what I must do with my money, and who I must share it with.

Yet that is what the left has essentially lived for since the days of FDR.

They have lived for the opportunity to make me as good as the next guy by making sure that if the next guy is doing well, the government can redistribute his wealth to me. Is that a definition of fairness? Is it fair for me to profit from the work, ingenuity, work ethic, and committment of someone else?

These are the questions that President Obama and his Party have brought to the forefront in this election, more than any election we have seen in generations.

And while the economy is and should be one of the most important issues of the 2012 cycle, what America needs to really do is look at the dynamics behind the economy. Then they must decide if we want to fully invest ourselves in to reconstructing our national foundation in to one that is the world’s preeminent government sponsored welfare state, a state which is the key element to the survival of each individual American. Or do we want to strengthen the founding principles which were designed to get government and the federal bureaucracy out of the way so that we can practice the rights that we were endowed with by our creator and be free to dream well beyond the limits of the government bureaucracy?

That is the framework that this election must waged in. It is the question which the Republican nominee for President needs to condense every interpretation of each of their policies down to.

In 2012, the G.O.P. needs to remind people that dependency is not the American way and that our government was never meant to be the largest source of jobs in America. In fact the purpose of our government is not to create jobs, it was designed to make sure that American people could create jobs.

People must be made to once again learn how things really work in America.

They must be retrained to understand that government created jobs do not generate profits that sustain the costs of the salaries paid to each government employee. They need to understand that an employee of the EPA does not do create wealth, they consume wealth. The American people must be made to once again realize that when the government creates a job, the salary for that job comes not from any federal profit…..it comes from the taxpayers, and in order to keep raising the money required to pay that government salary, the government will need to continue taking taxpayers money.

However, in the free market, profits create salaries and the more profits there are, the more salaries there are.

But there is even more to it than that basic fact.

Voters need to be made aware of the fact that according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, civilian workers employed through the federal government have an average wage of $81,258. Yet at the same time, the average wage of the nation’s approximate 101 million private-sector workers is $50,462.

This means that taxpayers, the people who are making money through jobs that generate profits, are paying federal workers 25% more than they make. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is increasing federal spending through so-called economic stimulus dollars, that is creating an even larger federal workforce, one that for a while was outpacing private sector job growth. And that is a formula for further disaster.

Paying federal salaries, and more of them, that are higher than the salaries which provide the taxes that pay for those federal pay checks, is a formula that leads to paying out more than we take in. And that is just on government jobs. It has nothing to do with the other more traditional forms of federal deficit spending based on entitlements and federal dependency programs.

All of this presents the next Republican presidential nominee a with a multifaceted challenge.

They must not just provide solutions and frame them in a way that wins people over, they must also educate people. The next Republican presidential nominee must educate people on how America is suppose to work and they must teach them the reasons why the socialist model of contemporary liberal-progressivism does not work and how it is a system designed to keep the powerbrokers in power by making them the people we are dependent for our own survival.

In 2012 we make people understand that government is not a supernatural entity which can wave a magic wand over a problem and solve it without accountability and without there being future repercussions as Peter finally has to Paul.

Once people can be made to realize that, I mean really realize that, half the battle will be won.

Once that is achieved we then need to confront Democrats and tell them that if they want change the purpose of government, they, like President, should come right out and admit it.

When he was running for President in 2008, then Senator Obama declared that he wanted to “fundamentally change America”. But few took him at his word. And those that did, didn’t think he really meant he wanted to fundamentally change the constitutional responsibilities of government. But now it is quite obvious that that is exactly what he meant.

In 2012 we must challenge Democrats to be truthful to the American people and force them to come before voters and admit that they want the federal government to have more control over our lives. We must challenge them to be honest and admit that they do not like the fact that some people can be financially wealthier than others. We must make the left come before the American electorate and let them know the America that liberals envision, is one in which everyone is made equal by lowering the overall quality of life rather than providing the type of environment which creates more opportunities for people to improve their quality of life.

We know for certain that class warfare is the name of the liberal game in 2012. It’s nothing new. But what Republicans must do now is reeducate the American people and make them realize why it is class warfare. And we must then ask the American people to decide once for all, if they believe dependency on the federal bureaucracy is the best foundation for them to build their lives upon and for our nation to grow on, or is the independence behind our reason for being the more solid choice for the future of our nation and its people.

Related articles

• President Obama’s First Reelection Ad Raises a Question. How Dumb Does He Think We Are? (whitehouse12.com)
• Dennis Kucinich Wants Taxpayer-Funded Campaigns (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Allen West To Liberals, President Obama: ‘Get The Hell Out Of The United States Of America’ (thinkprogress.org)

Obama’s Corrupt Crony Capitalism Extends Far Beyond Solyndra

LightSquared is just the latest example of questionable conduct which tears down the façade of transparency as well as the political and legal integrity of President Obama and his Administration. Evidence from the Pentagon in regards to a new wireless project by LightSquared, a satellite broadband company based in Virginia, has been raising questions about a new crony capitalism crime involving the Administration. This latest scandal comes on the heals of the Solyndra scandal which saw Democrat donors with Obama administration ties, secure a $500 million loan for the solar energy firm right before it went bankrupt. In the case of LightSquared, in order to help that corporate intersts, a firm owned by Democratic donor Philip Falcone, it seems that the Obama Administration asked Air Force General William Shelton to alter testimony that he presented in a classified briefing to members of Congress.

The testimony was called for after the Pentagon raised concerns that LightSquared was embarking upon a new wireless project which preliminary tests indicated would create a significant disruptions to the military’s use of critical Global Positioning System technology, which among other things, controls missile targeting.

When questioned extensively by members of Congress, General Shelton admitted that the White House pressured him to alter his testimony in order to make it more favorable for the Democrat donor’s company to move ahead with the project, despite how much it could possibly alter the military’s effectiveness. It is further alleged that the original testimony was leaked to LightSquared in advance of its delivery to the congressional panel it was meant for. Such a leak was a total breach of protocol in a process that only included the White House, the Office Management and Budget, and the Department of Defense .

This blatant attempt to influence Shelton’s original testimony and to involve LightSquared in the process in order to produce biased testimony designed to benefit another Democrat donor, is further evidence of the type of corruption that the Obama Administration is consistently engaged in. This time though, its crony capitalism went so far as to tamper with our nation’s defense capabilities. Such recklessness is more than just unforgivable, it is life threatening. But the Obama Administration seems not to have any regard for anything but its own political survival. And their history of politics before policy and campaign contributors before national concerns is extensive.

Who can forget the strange case of the Deep Water Horizon environmental disaster in the Gulf.?

After the President received more campaign donations from Bristish Petroleum than any other candidate in the nation he granted BP’s Deepwater Horizon a waiver that sheltered them from regulatory requirements. The Administration subsequently honored the Deep Water Horizon with a safety award. Now after hundreds of millions of gallons of oil have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government is blaming the operators of the Deep Water Horizon for cutting corners that led to the disaster. Ironically, the Bush Adminstration which was accused of being in the pocket of big oil interests, cited the Deep Water Horizon 6 times for safety violations.

Still though, President Obama likes to wage class warfare and hold oil companies up as greedy enemies of the people, and to claim that the big, bad Republicans are in bed with them. He loves claiming that Republicans are for big business while suggesting that he is not. Yet whose Administration is risking lives, the economy, and the environment for big business in return for big money contributions to his reelection effort?

Until now, President Obama’s Administration has escaped any aggressive scrutiny of its illegal conduct. The Democrat controlled Senate and House that he enjoyed for the first two years of his term, failed to thoroughly investigate any of the many puffs of smoke that indicated the fires of Obama related corruption. President Obama failed to face proper scrutiny in the case of BP. He failed to be properly investigated when his Administration was found to have been offering Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestack a job in turn for not challenging Senator Arlen Specter in a Democratic primary, or even when his Justice Department refused to investigate charges of black on white racism. These are just a few of the examples of corruption that has been ignored by the political establishment but this President has been virtually immune from the law in regards to a long list of other illegal activity. Such as:

• Seizing control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress.
• Firing whistle-blower Gerald Walpin for doing his job as the Inspector-General in charge of investigating corruption, waste, and fraud in government programs.
• Collecting data on fellow Americans who oppose healthcare reform with flag@whitehouse.gov and now, through a new Obama campaign website, again collecting data on fellow Americans who disagree with the Administration
• Placing the U.S. Census Bureau under the supervision of the White House Chief of Staff, by law the Department of Commerce.
• His Justice Department’s smuggling of weapons, that the President signed off on funding for.
• Manipulating jobs by hiring and rehiring Census workers.
• Creating false districts and assigning stimulus funds to those districts.
• Violating tax codes by releasing private tax details to the public when attacking Koch Industries.
• Creating a taxpayer-funded position, Director of Progressive Media & Online Response, to promote Obama’s incumbent candidacy, in violation of the Hatch Act.
• Obama’s filming of a campaign ad in the White House in violation of FEC laws.

Now as the 2012 election begins to ramp up, any attempts to investigate the President’s questionable acts and his Adminstaration’s conflicts of interest, will be written off as politically motivated, Republican campaign tactics. In all honesty, such investigations would indeed be a distraction from the issues. But Republicans do not need to try and win in 2012 by creating any distractions from the issues. Right now, on the issues of most importance to voters, Republicans win. That is however a fact that the left will ignore when the “Solyndra” hit’s the fan. It is also a fact that should really not play a role in whether or not questionable conduct by the Obama Administration should be investigated. The law is the law and political considerations should not determine the level of scrutiny that legally questionable conduct is given. Not unless unbeknownst to me, there has been a constitutional amendment passed which grants a Commander-in-Chief immunity from such things as the Hatch Act, or tampering with sworn testimony.

Of course the President will defend his Administration by try to claim such things as being among the most transparent executive branches in history because of new procedures he enacted that releases the White House visitors logs and meeting with lobbyists to the public. But the loopholes in this policy are big enough to fit an undetected army of liberal interest groups though.

First of all, these logs are not made public until four month’s time has passed.

Then there are also reports of Administration officials scheduling meetings in the White House Conference Center which is conveniently not covered by the Worker and Visitors Entrance System (WAVES System) that collects the data for these logs. Furthermore, the White House‘s attempt to achieve “transparency“ through the WAVES System does not include records of meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops and restaurants near the White House. All of this essentially circumvents sincere disclosure laws and policies.

For those reasons, Congress should look into the passage of new lobbying disclosure regulations that have real teeth and are capable of exposing government influence of Congress and the White House in real-time.

In the meantime, President Obama is getting away with murder and while the G.O.P. does not need to take President Obama down via a scandal, they also have a responsibility to not cover-up the White House cover-ups.

Operation Old TEA Bag: The Democrat’s Hail Mary Pass

    The recent special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District did more than just elect a Republican to a seat that  hasn’t been in the hands of the G.O.P. since 1923. It also shed some light on the desperation of Democrats and what direction they will throw the ball in when they try to salvage their 2012 election fortunes with a last minute Hail Mary pass.

In the race that pitted liberal incumbent Democrat Assemblyman David Weprin against retired businessman, Republican Bob Turner, Democrats struggled to find the issues that their candidate could run on to win voters over. Initially they did not even do that. At first it was assumed that as always, whichever Democrat they ran, would sail to victory and succeed sex texting addict Anthony Weiner. But then in August, Democrat polling showed something strange. It showed that Democrat Weprin was not getting the amount of support that Democrats usually get. This then suggested to them that they actually had a real and competitive election on their hands.

So they got to work and started to develop the issues they would campaign on.

What they found was that Weprin and Democrats had no positions on the issues that would excite voters and convince them that Weprin was their man. Even in a relatively liberal district like the ninth, there were no issues which Democrats held a popular position on.

There was the issue of gay marriage which Weprin recently supported the passage of in the New York State Assembly. But with a heavy Hassidic Jewish population in the ninth, legalizing marriage between two people of the same sex was far from popular.

There was the issue of our national debt. On that issue, Weprin held a typical Democrat line which supported big government and big government social programs. But even in a left leaning district like the one that spans the working class neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens, voters know that our debt has become a deepening crisis for our nation and as such, they understand that more government spending is not realistic. That left Weprin with the opportunity to use the traditional liberal language of tax increases to pay for all the spending. But in the middleclass communities of NY-9, tax increases, even for those who earn $250,000 or more, doesn’t really go over well. The ninth congressional district is comprised largely of those people in the middle……the ones who get hit from both ends and are not poor enough to benefit from government social programs, but are not wealthy enough to take advantage of the tax loopholes and credits that the political establishment has arranged for. So these people did not want to hear the Obama “make the rich pay their fare share” rhetoric. Many of them are afraid that a liberal definition of “rich” would include them.

There was the issue of immigration. However on that issue, Weprin has a liberal “Dream Act” position that does not solve the illegal immigration issue that impacts on his district’s residents. They do not want their money going to fulfilling the dreams of illegal immigrants. These people, many of which remember seeing the World Trade Center from their windows and worked within its shadows, want our borders secured.

So like many other issues, that was out.

There was Israel. After all, with a population of Jewish voters that is disproportionately larger than in many other districts throughout the nation, as an Orthodox Jew himself, Weprin could certainly and convincingly argue his support for Israel and ride high on the popularity of that point. Unfortunately though, being a Democrat, most voters linked Weprin to President Obama’s unfriendly policies towards Israel. And Weprin’s argument to voters that they should trust him on israel because he would fight for Israel from within, didn’t have wings.

Short of a total condemnation of President Obama by Weprin, the Jewish vote in his district simply viewed Weprin as a congressional rubberstamp for Obama’s polcies.

The further Democrats went down the list of issues important to the middleclass voters of the ninth, the more they realized that there were no issues which allowed them to present a position that they could derrive district-wide support for.

So what is a candidate with a competitive election ahead of him to do?

Why, resort to the liberal playbook, of course!

That meant scare citizens. That meant to try and distort the Republican position to preserve Social Security and Medicare for those on it and those expecting to soon  be on them.  It meant denying the Republican position to preserve those programs for future generation with reforms that will strengthen Social Security and medicare. It meant do your best to make vulnerable senior citizens believe that if a Republican won, they would deny them the money that many seniors have come to rely upon.

That was a good start but Weprin and his Democrat strategists and Washington puppet masters needed something else to attract some voters outside of the senior citizen demographic. That’s when the orders from Washington came down. And that is when the strategy to run against the TEA Party came into play.

So in early August Operation Old TEA Bag went into effect. That is when Weprin campaign spokesperson Elizabeth Kerr first argued the following:

“Bob Turner’s doing anything he can to distract voters from his plan to end Medicare as we know it, which would cost seniors in Brooklyn and Queens an extra $6,400 every year,” .

And from there, the tactics to scare senior citizens began

Then when the news that Standard & Poor’s had downgraded the country’s credit rating because of fiscal uncertainty came out and  dominated the headlines, Weprin’s campaign defined Bob Turner as a TEA Party extremist and charged that because of their “irresponsible demands”, “Republican Tea Party extremists” facilitated the downgrade and the fallout from it.

From that point on, the Democrat campaign for Congress in NY-9 began.

It was a constant barrage of trying to make the TEA Party the enemy that voters had to unite against.  It was a never ending campaign to define Bob Turner as the TEA Party candidate. In Between those lines of attack was tossed in the same old scare tactics intended to frighten senior citizens that predate the Reagan Administration.

For his part Bob Turner campaigns argued;

“Career politicians like David Weprin have taxed and spent this country into a crisis. They have jeopardized the entire social safety network by irresponsibly borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend,”

And as one Turner campaign aide put it;

“Businessman Bob Turner is running to protect Social Security and Medicare for every American over 55 years old and to put those essential programs on a sustainable path for everybody younger than that.”

But Bob Turner didn’t just defend himself against Operation Old TEA Bag. He spent most of his time denouncing the Obama policies that even urban, middle-class Democrats have lost faith in. Like the days of Ronald Reagan, Bob Turner found himself addressing a new generation of Reagan Democrats. Democrats who do not appreciate the condition of our nation and do not have faith in the direction their Party is heading in under a liberal President.

Yet as the campaign continued and the polls tightened, D.C. Democrats from the DCCC, DNC, and from the state and local Party apparatus, double-downed on their last hope……Operation Old TEA Bag. Even when only days before the special election was to take and polls showed that Turner turned the tables and was now ahead of Weprin, Democrats found themselves desperately trying to make a success of their fear campaign of senior citizens and their efforts to make the TEA Party the common enemy.

The plan was perfect. It even concluded on a  high note…….a recorded phone call from former President Clinton which tied the TEA Party and Medicare together as he stated “and he’ll oppose the TEA Party plan to destroy Medicare” [see the video below].  But ultimately, what Democrats thought was the perfect strategy, proved to be as unsustainable and useless as their economic policies.

Like driving a car on empty it was a last ditch, desperate attempt to run a camping not on any issues,  just on fear. The only problem is that in the end, senior citizens were less afraid of distortions about Bob Turner than they were of the truth about the current direction our nation is headed. In the end, the voters of the ninth district decided that the TEA Party was not their problem. Democrats were.

Unless  Democrats start singing a different a tune, they will still be the problem in 2012.  And just as Operation Old TEA Bag did not work for them in CD-9,  it will not work for them in the 2012 elections.from the top of the Democrat ticket , to the bottom of the ballot.  However, with little else left in their playbook, I expect the Democrats to do little else but resort to scaring senior citizens and trying to run against the TEA Party. 

Democrats Must Make A Decision. Tax Relief is Either Good for the Econmy or Bad for the Economy?

    Ahead of President Obama’s newest major speech and address to a joint session of Congress, there is much discussion about several solutions to the jobs problem that revolve around taxation. The buzz is that alleviating some of the tax burden will provide incentives for businesses to hire. This talk is not coming from Republicans. It is coming from Democrats, including President Obama. While Republicans are always in support of a good tax cut for all entities, Democrats usually are not. In fact today’s socialist Democrat Party loves to try to claim that Republicans only want to cut taxes for the rich. Then they subsequently stretch what the definition of “rich” is.

But the fact that a large number of Democrats are willing to withhold on any reduced rate of tax collection is an incredibly profound change and although they are unwilling to admit it, it is also a big admission to the success of supply-side economics and the benefits of tax cuts.

The argument is that the economy is so bad that we must relieve some of the tax burden on businesses and offer them incentives to hire. Mind you, this is not what Republicans are arguing, it was Democrats are arguing and even proposing. On Thursday President Obama is said to begin rolling out a job creation program which is a mix of tax cuts and spending that amounts to another stimulus package and is proposing such things as tax relief for businesses.

In fact, today, socialist Democrats all across America are supporting lessening taxes as a means to stimulate the economy. Just this past Summer, many Democrats supported the repatriation of corporate taxes on profits made by them outside of the United States at a lower than normal rate. But one of the liberal objections to this was that companies would not use a tax reparation holiday and the additional money they would make on the lower than normal tax rate of such a tax holiday, on creating jobs here in America. So some liberals wanted to pass legislation that would use the additional funds from a tax holiday, to lower unemployment in the U.S.. But according to liberal California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, such legislation is wrong. Back in June she reportedly said;

“I think you should be able to spend your money how you want to use your money,”

She added;

“The last time in 2004 when we did this, corporations used it and bought back their stock. So what? If I was a stockholder in that company, I did well.”

I never thought I would write this, but Sanchez was right. But Sanchez’s thinking here is consistent with her record which is usually a tax and spend mentality that relies on the government taking the money out of the free market and spending it and redistributing it themselves. And such inconsistent liberal thinking is becoming prevalent during the current economic crisis.

Back in July, the bastion of liberalism known as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts signed off on their own holiday. It was a sales tax holiday that lasted set for just two days in August and it gave shoppers a temporary break from the state’s 6.25 percent sales tax. This amounted to an estimated $20 million tax cut for consumers. After a Massachusetts House vote that passed the bill with 123 votes for it, to a mere 23 votes against it, the state’s liberal House Speaker, Robert DeLeo said in a statement;

“The House has once again voted to stimulate local businesses which keep jobs in Massachusetts.”

He subsequently added;

“With folks across the Commonwealth continuing to struggle through the economic downturn, the sales tax holiday will provide relief to consumers while supporting local merchants.”

Such thinking is correct. It is the same thinking that people like Jack Kemp have devoted their lives to. It is the same thinking that till this very day, liberals ridicule President Ronald Reagan for. Yet today, Democrats are embracing the policy as a means to create jobs and stimulate the economy. And this goes for President Obama.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that if such supply side, tax relief thinking can be applied to getting our nation out of its current economic crisis, why is it not good enough to keep us from entering economic crisis?

Lower tax rates on businesses, corporations, families, and individuals are either good or bad. Republicans contend that a lower tax burden is good but Democrats are trying to tell us that a lower tax burden is only good when the economy is ailing. But you can’t have it both ways. So which is it? Do today’s socialist Democrats accept the fact that lower taxes allow for a stronger economy or do they hurt the economy?

Today Democrats are willing to admit that lower taxes help are good for America. But tomorrow they will once again begin preparing campaign literature and ads that try to wage class warfare and accuse Republicans of being for only the big business and the wealthy. I have long maintained that the liberal socialist ideology of the Democrat Party is an illogical, hypocrisy based ideology. This just helps prove it.

Chris Christie Tells Jersey Visitors and Residents to Go to …….. the Beach

   In the lead up to Hurricane Irene’s strike on New Jersey, Governor Christie had been on top of things and was not allowing New Jerseyans to take the storm or its potential for granted.  In doing so, he spoke a number of frank truisms, or as I call them, Christieisms………………..brutally honest and blunt statements of fact that respond to the stupidity of the masses and the mass media.  One of his most potent lines came during a Friday afternoon briefing of state efforts to prepare for the storm and get citizens out of harms way.

At one point during the briefing,  the Governor mentioned that before his press conference, he was not thrilled to see on TV, hundreds of people on the beach at Asbury Park, a municipality that had ordered a voluntary evacuation.  The Governor then suggested that these people were acting stupidly and bellowed “Get the hell of the beach…..you’ve maximized your tan, get in your cars and get out of these areas”

Now as New Jersey recovers from what turned out to be a powerful tropical storm that still wreaked havoc throughout state, most of the coastal beaches are ready to host this Labor Day weekend’s vacationers and visitors who want to have the Summer’s last hurrah.  So today Governor Christie’s Twitter feed featured this tweet………

“Get the hell back on the beach! Are you planning on going #dts this labor day weekend? #jerseyshore”

Governor Christie still has his hands full with state efforts to recover from Irene.  Inland as well as coastal properties still have a great deal of clean up and repair to contend with, but the Governor knows that this last official weekend of Summer is critical to New Jersey’s economy and the hundreds of thousands of coastal businesses that rely upon season profits to get through the entire year.  As such, his creative spin on his previous warning to get off the beach before Hurricane Irene, is an amusing and welcome way to get people back there for the traditional end of Summer profit push in the state’s endless number of beach based communities.

 

How New Jersey Kept Residents in the Dark After Hurricane Irene

    Under the exemplary leadership of Governor Chris Christie, before and during Hurricane Irene, New Jersey was prepared for the dangerous weather system in a way that can only be considered superb.  Even in the storm’s aftermath, the state did a good job.  But there is one area where all government entities failed the citizenry.

At one point immediately following Hurricane Irene, a whopping 2 million New Jersey residents were left without power.  The news widely reported that the state government warned that some homes would be without power for as long as three to five days.  While such a long timeframe could produce a great deal of consternation, it is hard to argue that all involved in getting power back on were not doing all they could.  The extreme circumstances of widespread statewide damage made it the duration of time requiring to fix everything quite logical.  So I will fault no one for that reality.

However there is a great deal of blame that must be shared for one poorly served area of responsibility.  Most all locations and citizens who lost power, suffered from an incredible lack of communication between the state and their local governments. None of them were told by anyone, what was going on. None of them were told when to expect their power to go on and if they might be without power for so long that it would best for them to temporarily relocate.

Even those who have the most up-to-date, modern communication technology were eventually kept in the dark.  Not only do laptops lose internet connection to the news once power is gone, cell phones also run out of power and in many cases electrical powered telephones with landlines become useless without electricity.

Furthermore; in the case of senior citizens, many do not use cell phones and lack advanced communication tools, but even those who do have cell phones and such, eventually run out of power and therefore their communication capabilities.

These people were figuratively as well as  literally kept in the dark. 

Now I won’t lay the blame for this on the Governor. Afterall, there are County governments and even more directly, there are municipal governments. In the case of the senior community in question, they even have a community management team. All of these lines of defense come before the state government, yet ALL of them failed the people.

This was a total lack of proper, effective, leadership, and the failure should serve as a lesson that allows the government chain of command to not fail the citizenry they serve and answer to.

Counties need to coordinate emergency information communications with those who are cut off from traditional electronic based communications.  Municipalities should be able to mobilize teams who can canvass those areas left without electricity and communicate to residents the status of the outage and any advisories and information regarding of that outage.

Government, on all levels takes on many responsibilities these days.  From providing housing, dictating education cirriculums, monitoring our eating habbits, to regualting whether we can put a fence up in our yard.  Whether any or all of that iswarranted is arguable.   But the one government responsibility that is not arguable is the one to keep its citizens informed and safe.  And that is the one responsibility which government failed to properly live up to in regards to the handling of the power outages folowing Hurricane Irene.

This shortcoming is one which needs to be addressed.  In addition to heavy winds, torrential rains and billions of dollars in damage, Hurricane also provided us with a lesson.  Now it is up to government to prove that they learend the lesson.

Paul Ryan for President

    ”If Ryan does decide to run, win or lose, I will be behind him either until he wins the nomination and the presidency or ends his campaign.”  -Anthony Del Pellegrino, aka: Kempite

 

Reports have indicated that Wisconsin Congressman and Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul. Ryan is in the final stages of deciding on a presidential run. According to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Ryan associates have been quietly going around and laying the groundwork for a run which has included establishing the deadlines for gaining ballot access to the ballot in each of the 50 states. Hayes reports that Ryan has been discussing the possibilities of running with advisors and close firlends about a run since last spring. He further adds that Congressman Ryan had been expecting Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to run and he was looking forward to a Daniels candidacy. But after a call from Governor Daniels to Ryan to give him a heads about his decision not to run, Ryan’s thinking about a run for President changed profoundly.

Hayes also reports that a Republican source close to Ryan, claims the Congressman is;

“coming around,” and adds “With Paul, it’s more about obligation than opportunity,” says another Wisconsin Republican. “He is determined to have the 2012 election be about the big things. If that means he has to run, he’s open to it.”

For its part Roll Call reports that the Congressman discussed the matter with House Speaker John Boehner when the subject of a spot on the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction arose.

But Roll Call also reports that while Paul Ryan is considering a run for president he is unlikely not to run for the same reasons that held him back so far……….to avoid the fundraising and political demands that would keep him away from his family for extended periods. Another consideration for Paul Ryan would also be the possibility of losing the election and losing his influential position of the House Budget Committee where he is doing good and critically important work.

Much of the speculation about Ryan’s possible presidential candidacy arose from a talk show interview the Congressman conducted by Charlie Sykes, a Milwaukee based radio show host. That exchange went as follows:

Sykes :  “Looking at the Republican field right now, are you confident that the candidates there are able to articulate the issues of the debt and the deficit and the need to reform entitlements in the way that you want to see done?”

Ryan :  (laughing) “Why did you ask me that?”

Sykes :  “You know exactly why I asked you that question.”

Ryan :  “I know. We’ll see. I didn’t see it last night. I haven’t seen it to date. We’ll see. People’s campaigns evolve – they get better. So we’ll see.”

Ryan :  “Look, the way I see 2012 – we owe it to the country to let them choose the path they want our country to take. And I just have yet to see a strong and principled articulation of the kind of limited government, opportunity society path that we would provide as an alternative to the Obama cradle to grave welfare state.”

Sykes :  “Do you think that it is absolutely essential that there be a Republican candidate who is able to articulate…”

Ryan : (cutting Sykes off) “I do. Because this is how we get our country back. We do it through a referendum letting the country pick the path not by having a committee of 12 people pick the path or not by having just the inertia of just letting the status quo just stumble through by winning a campaign based on dividing people.”

Sykes :  You understands why people think that person should be you?.”

Ryan :  “Well, I keep hearing that. I’m hoping that people will step up and I’m hoping that somebody – I can help them fashion this. You know my story and you know my answer – and I haven’t changed it. We’ve got a long way to go. There’s 15 months left.”

The interview which was conducted last Tuesday, came before the official entry of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who as of today, according to a Rasmussen survey finds Perry the frontrunner in the race ahead of Mitt Romney by 11% and Michele Bachmann by 17%.

Whether or not Congressman Ryan believes that Rick Perry is the candidate who can offer the “strong and principled articulation of the kind of limited government, opportunity society path” that we need,  has yet to be seen, but either way, the Congressman can’t really wait much longer to decide. The very latest he can get into the game would be October. Anything beyond that will be placing any chance for the successful financing and organizing of a campaign a a great disadvantage that will be hard to overcome.

Much like Paul Ryan, my thinking about the Republican presidential race also changed “profoundly” when Governor Mitch Daniels decided not to seek the nomination. For me, Mitch Daniels was one of the best qualified people to address our predominant economic problems and was a candidate with whom a good campaign to defeat the President could have been built around. With Daniels out, and others like Sarah Palin not in, while I have found many things I liked about such people as Mitt Romney, I have not yet  been confident enough to throw my support behind any of them. But that will not be the case if Paul Ryan runs. If Ryan runs, White House 2012, the sister blog of POLITICS 24/7  will have itself a Ryan 2012 correspondent in me.

Paul Ryan represents the true future of the G.O.P. and as a fiscally responsible leader he is just what America needs. He is a new generation Republican, one who works from the premise of what is best for the nation, not for his poll numbers. That kind of thinking may not win a him the nomination through the type of popularity contest that is today’s politics, but it is the type of honesty that American voters should welcome and demand.

At some point one must stand behind what they believe in not just what they think will win. And beyond any shadow of any doubt, I believe in Paul Ryan , therefore if Ryan does decide to run, win or lose, I will be behind him either until he wins the nomination and the presidency or ends his campaign.

Who Sits on the Deficit Reduction Committee Will Determine Who Has Won the Debt Ceiling Debate

    The pending multifaceted, two staged deal on raising the debt ceiling has received mixed reaction. Those on the left despise the fact that the deal does not include any immediate tax increases, or as they have been defined in this debate, revue increases. Those on the right despise the deal because it does not contain any significant reforms on entitlements and does no go far enough in proposing cuts. Then there are those who have no partisan political allegiances. These are for the most part, the average independent, middle of the road voter. These individuals understand that the proposal’s almost $3 trillion in deficit reduction over a ten year period is really only a drop in the bucket that does little to put a dent into our long term debt and is still not enough to maintain the United States’ AAA credit rating.

While the deal is not yet a done deal, despite conservative angst with the proposal and liberal disgust for the bill, it is more than likely going to pass in the Senate. So ultimately, look for passage of the bill.

That brings up another debate. One that is totally based on political perceptions and asks who won this deficit ceiling debate?

Seeing as how the bill raises our debt ceiling and does not reduce our debt significantly enough, there are no winners. At least not immediately. In fact the lack of immediate results makes us all losers here. But at the same time, it is clear that Republicans have settled on a deal that moves things in their direction. Democrats received none of the tax increases they wanted, they received none of the spending increases they wanted, and they were forced to accept some bitter pills. Some of these pills include the Republicans desire to get Democrats on record with a future vote on a balanced budget amendment and immediate spending caps. Another Republican victory in the proposal that is hard for the left to swallow is the automatic wholesale cut of up to $1.2 trillion that will occur if several terms of this bill are not met by the time Congress goes on their Thanksgiving recess in October.

So it would seem that Republicans have advanced their conservative agenda far more than liberals advanced their socialist agenda. Still, the need to reduce the deficit significantly enough to insure that our debt does not continue to exceed our GDP, has not been achieved.

Solving that problem will require deficit reduction actions that more than double the nearly $3 trillion proposed over the next decade. And that will have to be done in the not so distant future.

In the meantime, while Republicans did not have to compromise as much as Democrats were forced to, they are not yet winners in the debate. That will only be determined in October when the newly created Select Committee on Deficit Reduction proposes the $1.2 trillion in cuts and expense saving reforms that the bill demands. From the Republican perspective, the danger here is that this super committee is not limited to spending cuts and entitlement reforms. It could end up proposing tax increases (revenues). The committee could also shirk its responsibility to significantly reform entitlements, something that will be quite hard to pass the Senate anyway.

Given the flexibility that the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction has, the only way the G.O.P. will have proven that they were successful in this recent deficit ceiling debate will come from what the Select Committee on deficit Reduction comes up with.

The committee is to be comprised of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, presumable chosen by the legislative leaders of the perspective political Parties. Boehner and McConnell for Republicans, and President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for the Democrats.

The Party leaders will initially consider the usual cast of characters as candidates for this committee. People like Tom Kean, Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson, Lee Hamilton, Judd Gregg, and other seemingly, now non-partisan, elder statesmen. Now while there may not necessarily be anything wrong with the usual cast of candidates for typical D.C., bureaucratic committees, the crisis we are in is not typical. Our debt crisis is so severe that for the first time in history, military experts warn that it has become a national security crisis. Furthermore; President Obama’s leadership has awakened the nation to just how distinct the political ideologies that divide our nation are. People have come to question what kind of nation America will be. Will we be the type of nation with a government that controls more and more of our lives with greater control, or do we want less spending, less government, and more freedom. Including economic freedom.

The ideological differences have become so divergent, that it is incumbent on the G.O.P. to make sure that the 6 members they choose for the deficit reduction commission are true conservatives who believe in limited government. Any one of those who doesn’t hold true to that belief, can easily defect and give the balance of power to the 6 liberals that Democrats will appoint to that committee.

So who should the G.O.P. appoint to the committee?

The first choice should be House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Ryan is a must. He is a deficit hawk who is reasonable but passionate. He understands the need for entitlement reform, supports a balanced budget amendment, is brave enough to stand against the tide of popular opinion and not looking for anything more than getting the job done.

Another appointment should be Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

Daniels has been there and done that when it comes to the budget, deficits, and spending. As Governor, his state has been one of the most economically stable states in the nation and he brings to the table some first hand experience with the excellent built-in, economic structural aspects of the budget process that Indiana has and that the United States would be wise to adopt.

Former Tennessee Fred Thompson is another excellent choice.

Thompson has proven to have a wealth of understanding for our existing problems and a unique down-to-earth and often blunt approach to the problem that can be refreshing.

Other good choices would be individuals who do not come from the often self-contained alternative reality that is Washington, D.C. People who are students of sound economic policy and people who have operated with and successfully crafted budgets that created jobs. The type of people who come from the real world……the private sector. People like Jack Welch, the most studied CEO of the 20th century, who had a successful 41- year career with the General Electric Company, one of the nation’s most preeminent names in the free market. Lawrence Kudlow is another refreshing suggestion. The CEO of Kudlow & Co., LLC, an economic research firm was a chief economist and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company, back when Bear Sterns ran things right, he improper workings of the Federal Reserve Bank regarding open market operations and bank supervision. Kudlow is also the host of The Kudlow Report on CNBC.

With the exception of Paul Ryan, there are probably others who would make even better members than those suggested above. These are the type of people who should have a seat at the table that represents the conservative, free market, economic principles which can get us back on track. Without conservative voices who will stand firm on these values, Democrats will wind up being the real winners of this most contentious recent debt ceiling debate.

Gabrielle Giffords Makes A Surprise Return To D.C. to Cast a Bipartisan Vote

    Gabrielle Giffords made a surprise return to Washington, D.C.  today. After a tweet on Twitter that said Gabriele Giffords returns to Washington to support bipartisan legislation, the Congresswoman walked on to the floor of the House for the first time in over seven months.

In the middle of the final House vote on a bitterly battled debate to raise the ceiling, the Congresswoman entered the chamber to a round of spontaneous applause that lasted for over five minutes. With that, she cast her vote and  added her support for the bill which passed with 269 votes in support and 161 opposed.

Gabby Giffords’ return to Washington was probably one of the most difficult one in the history of the House. While many have endured tough reelection campaigns and some have even had to cope with set backs in their health, none have taken a bullet to the head in the line of duty and none have had to enter a recovery and rehabilitation regimen as difficult as hers. Back in January, while holding a constituent service in her home district of Arizona, the Congresswoman was shot by a madman whose rampage killed several and wounded dozens.

As if the final vote on the contentious debt ceiling bill needed any more drama added to it, the return of Giffords to work on the House floor added an almost surreal, made-for-TV-like flavor to it all. But it also offered us al a dose of reality in the alternate reality that is often D.C. politics. Giffords exhibited the type of strength and stamina that proves to us nothing is impossible and that with the right determination and passion, all odds can beaten and goals can be achieved. That goes too for controlling spending and balancing our federal budget.

No matter what though, Gabrielle Giffords helped end an otherwise ugly and negative process on an positive high note. We should all join in a hearty congratulations to the Congresswoman and her family as well as to thank her for what is an exemplary commitment to public service and dedication to participation in the democratic.

Are Republicans the Party of ‘No” or Are Democrats the Party of “No-Can-Do”

   As many, or depending on how one looks at it, as few as 25 Republicans are refusing to support Speaker’s John Boehner’s deficit reduction plan. A late scheduled vote on the plan on Thursday was pulled after it became clear to the House Republican leadership that they did not have the 217 votes needed to pass the Boehner plan and it is not yet known when or if the vote will take place on Friday. This leaves the Senate and House with approximately only three days to cut a deal that would allow the federal government to raise the debt ceiling before it has the potential of defaulting on its current debt on Tuesday, August 2^nd.

But on Thursday, financial institutions reported that based upon all of the deficit reduction plans that are being considered, no matter which one is passed, the markets are likely to downgrade the United States’ credit rating because none of the plans reduce the national debt sufficiently enough to sustain its current AAA rating. This fact has only helped to reinforce the position of the 25 or so House Republicans who have taken the position that they can support any of the plans out there, because they do not go far enough in cutting spending.

Given the new data, these approximately two dozen Republicans are right. If President Obama and Democrats are to be believed, we were going to default on our debt by August 2^nd, if we did not raise the debt ceiling. Aside from bogus Democrat attempts to scare senior citizens by claiming that they would then not receive their Social Security checks, the main argument for the need to raise the debt ceiling was that a failure to do so would force a downgrade of our credit rating. This would produce a significant increase on interest that all Americans would have to pay. But now that it is clear that neither Boehner’s or the Democrat’s plans would cut spending enough to avoid a downgrade of our credit rating, it only makes sense to do what is necessary to avoid that form happening. As such, the position held by the Republican who are holding out for more spending cuts and a more significant deficit reduction plan, are right to oppose the existing plans.

With the facts as they are, to do anything other than come up with a bill which that significantly and quickly cuts our deficit and debt, would be meaningless. If the G.O.P. led House does now pass the Boehner plan, the only possible reason for it would be an obvious desire to avoid the political fallout from leftwing rhetoric designed to make the Republican Party look like the Party of “no” and as obstructionists unwilling to compromise. But the question is what are the compromises choices? Pass a hike in the debt ceiling by August and see our credit rating downgraded because our current debt obligations and future debt is unmanageable? Or default on our debt by not raising the debt ceiling and still see our our credit rating downgraded because our current debt obligations and future debt is unmanageable?

 That is not a compromise. It is insanity as described by Albert Einstein it is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. .

The only sincere political move here would be to hammer out a bill that cuts costs and reduces spending. Part of those spending reductions must include true entitlement reform. Entitlements are the largest portion of the existing and future debt. They are the elephant in the room and to ignore them or pretend that it is not there is not just stupid, it is lethal to our economy.

As for Speaker Boehner, I appreciate the direction he has been going in. His leadership has been pushing for less spending and more cuts. However, as we can see, he was not pushing for enough cuts in spending. Under pressure from President Obama and the Democrat led Senate, he has been encouraged to compromise. In his unique position, Boehner has tried to accommodate both his conservative caucus and the liberal President and Senate. But it is clear that in this case, compromise will not save our economy or our economic future. So speaker Boehner must ask himself this. Will he act on this issue as a politician or as a leader?

Currently the following 25 members are said to be voting Nay on Boehner’s bill.

Todd Akin (Mo.)
Justin Amash (Mich.)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
Paul Broun (Ga.)
Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Jeff Duncan (S.C.)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
*Scott Garrett (N.J.) -as 0f 10:30 am, Rep. Garrett’s office tells POLITICS 24/7 that he has not announced his position
Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Louie Gohmert (Texas)
Trey Gowdy (S.C.)
Tom Graves (Ga.)
Andy Harris (Md.)
Tim Huelskamp
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Steve King (Iowa)
Raúl Labrador (Idaho)
Connie Mack (Fla.)
Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Dennis Ross (Fla.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Steve Southerland (Fla.)
Joe Walsh (Ill.)
Joe Wilson (S.C.)

These men and women understand that passing the Boehner plan would be nothing more than a purely political vote and they would rather lead than play politics. Hopefully, these 25 members can influence Speaker Boehner in a way that will force him to do the same.

In 2010, voters clearly and loudly called for leadership, not compromise. Much of the electorate is tired of political compromises that benefit the political careers of the political players but do great harm to the long term health of our nation. The 25 members holding out for more cuts understand this. They are also making this moment in time a pivotal one for the career of John Boehner.

Boehner promised to be a different kind of Speaker of the House. He promised those who put the G.O.P. in control of the House that he would not cave in to politics-as-usual, would not forget the need for fiscal responsibility, and would uphold a commitment to accountability. Now is his chance to prove that he was not lying. Now is the time for a political leader who will stop playing games and get the job done. Right now, that job is to come up with a plan that significantly reduces our debt and does not just move numbers around. John Boehner must be brave and willing to turn the tables around on the Democrats who live in a world of perpetual taxing and spending. Instead of being on the defensive and afraid that Democrats will paint Republicans as the Party of “no”, Boehner must be brave and demonstrate how Democrats are being the Party of “no can do”, the Party that can’t propose a budget, the Party that can’t cut spending, can’t avoid a downgrading of our credit rating, can’t stimulate our economy or create jobs, and that can’t reform the entitlement programs that will go broke if they are not reformed.

What it comes down to is who is the Party of “no-can-do”, and who is the Party that is willing to say no to the right things? John Boehner can make the answer to that question clear to the American people, but only if he is willing to side with those who are more concerned with solutions than they are with political perceptions.