Term Limits

As you may well know if you've read this blog before, I am a huge opponent of "career politicians".  I don't care which party they belong to, I don't care how good or how bad they are.  The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted following FDR's death in office during his 4th term, thus ensuring that no person shall serve more than two terms (8 years) as President.  This in effect ends the possibility of a dictatorship or one person gaining the office and refusing to step down.  It's a good, if not great, amendment but my question is this, what about Congress?  Why isn't what's good enough for the goose good enough for the gander?  Why do we keep our nations lawmakers, which is what Congress is, in the same position year after year ad nauseum?  I believe that the lack of term limits for congressmen promotes laziness among the American people.  I you ask most people how often we have elections, they'll tell you, "every 4 years."  Wrong.  We have elections every 2 years for each member of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.  The term for Senators is 6 years and is staggered so they are not all elected at once.  In my opinion, anyone serving in an elected office should be limited to 2 terms per office.  This will keep anyone from serving longer than 24 years if they managed to serve as a Representative, Senator, and President.  Here in Nevada, Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been serving as a U.S. Senator since 1987.  That's 24 years, and he still has 4 more years on his current term.  What's worse is there are several Congressmen, past and present, who have served longer than Reid.  This is insane!  The founding fathers believed, as I do, that serving public office should be a privilege and an honor, not a career.  I feel the longer you are in office, the more susceptible you become to all the special interest groups, lobbyists, and all the other trappings that have given political office the negative stigma is has today.  I firmly believe, and I know I'm not alone, that once someone gets into public office and gets that six figure salary and all the perks that go with it, they will do and say anything to stay there.  And while I'm at it, how absurd is it that Congress gets to vote their own pay raises?  When was the last time you told your boss that you gave yourself a raise?  I'm sure that gave them a good chuckle.  I think they should get a cost of living raise or 3% of their salary, whichever is less.  No discussion, no debate. The only ones who have the authority to change it are We the People.  Furthermore, they should not be paid anywhere near what they are paid now.  This is supposed to be an honor, not a way of life.  The less they're paid, the more people of honor and integrity will serve because they will not be doing it for the money.  Folks, if less than 1 out of every 5 Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, why do we keep putting the same people back in power?  Wake up!!!  Pay attention to what is going on and get rid of the vermin that are infesting our house!!  Please, as you read this, I beg you, don't keep this to yourself.  Tell your friends, co-workers, whoever will listen.  I don't even care if you tell them about this blog.  Just get involved so we can save this once proud nation.  I am proud to be an American and I don't want to ever use that in the past tense.  I don't think you do either.

Who's got it right?

We've had a two party system for many, many years now despite the recommendation of none other than George Washington that we avoid it if at all possible.  But its the system we have and we need to make the best of it, for now.  But what are the Democrats and Republicans all about ideologically?  Let's look at the basics.

Democrats are for the "little people", you know, the poor, the elderly, those who "don't have a voice."

Republicans are for businesses, the free market system and to keep government out of our daily lives.

Democrats are more about entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, universal health care, etc., and Republicans are more about lower taxes, personal accountability ans self-reliance.

These are broad generalizations of course, but they're fairly accurate.  If I went point by point, you'd be reading for a week.  Now as I've said before, many of the programs that Democrats champion are very altruistic and founded in the best of intentions, but we all what what they say about "good intentions."  Let's look at the king of these programs - Social Security.  It's premise was simple.  Have taxpayers put money into a "trust fund" that they will be able to draw from once they retire.  Sounds good, but the problem inherent in this program reared its ugly head with the very first monthly recipient.  Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, paid into Social Security for 3 years, from 1937 - 1939, for a grand total of $24.75.  When she received her first monthly check, it was in the amount of $22.54.  By the time her Social Security stopped, upon her death at 100 years of age, she had received a total of $22,888.92.  Ms. Fuller had received nearly 1000X the amount of money she put in.  It is instances like this that show how flawed government entitlement programs are.

Now two big Republican values are that they favor the death penalty for criminals and the "pro-life" movement.  So while Republicans believe in smaller government and as little government intrusion into the daily lives of citizens as possible, they are OK telling a woman what they can and can't do with their body.  On the other side, Democrats are "pro-choice", but against the death penalty.  So it's OK to kill an unborn child but not a convicted criminal.  I'm not trying to start the abortion and death penalty debates here.  I just used these two examples to point out the hypocrisy of both parties.

If there's one basic truth about the average American, its this:  they like knowing the government programs are there when they need them, and they like lower taxes.  I'd even venture that they would support higher taxes for these programs if they were run efficiently.  Unfortunately, the government and both parties within the government has proven time and again that it is incapable of running these programs efficiently.  The biggest problem is that the parties have almost become interchangeable, especially among "career politicians."  So the question remains - "Who's got it right?"  I guess it depends on your point of view.  In my humble opinion, neither has it right.

Commander in Chief?

Time to rant about President Obama.  I know, a conservative that doesn't like the President, big shock.  Be that as it may, I think there are things about this president that need to be addressed.  First of all, I must give Obama credit.  Without his rise through the primaries to the nomination in 2008, I probably would not be this involved in politics.  While I was watching the primaries in 2008, I had 2 questions:

1. Who the H E double hockey sticks is Barack Obama?

and

2. Why is the media falling all over this guy?

I mean really, who thought that anyone other than Hillary Clinton was going to win the Democratic nomination?  Anyone?  Didn't think so.  I'll go a step further.  Not only did I think that Hillary was going to win the nomination, I fully expected her to be our country's first female President.  Obviously, I was wrong.  Once the presidential race started, I really felt that even if Jesus Christ himself had won the Republican nomination, He would have lost the election.  No disrespect to my Lord and Savior, but there was such a large anti-Republican sentiment at the time, given the economic downturn and antipathy toward the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was no way any Republican was going to win.  As the campaigns progressed, I noticed the Obama camp was spending millions of dollars on signs, posters, TV airtime, etc., much, much more than the McCain camp, but more important than that were Obama's speeches.  They were very eloquent, very passionate, and completely devoid of substance.  His slogans were "Hope and Change", and "Change we can believe in."  But oddly enough, we never really got any clarification as to what those things meant.  Turned out not to matter as Obama cruised to the Presidency.  Once he was in office, Obama made it clear that the country's problems were not his fault.  Fair enough, but here we are 2 1/2 years later, things have gone from bad to worse, and he has yet to accept responsibility for any of it.  Look up "Obama blames" on your favorite search engine, and you will get an endless supply of hits.  On his radio show recently, Rush Limbaugh read off 6 pages of occasions where Obama blamed someone or something for problems with the economy or the country in general since he took office.  6 pages.  He blamed everything from George W. Bush to the Japanese tsunami.  The only one he didn't blame was himself.  His kept talking about the budget deal but didn't present one himself that we could see.  He said he had a budget.  I guess we were just supposed to take his word for it.  He just looked at what other peoples' proposals and give his opinion.  This is leadership?  The first four letters of leadership are L E A D.  Lead.  This President doesn't lead, he just sits back and lets others do all the heavy lifting, pointing fingers when it doesn't work or taking all the credit when it does.  He is not deserving of the title "Commander-in-Chief" or "President."  Hopefully in November 2012, he will be stripped of both.

What is the Tea Party?

I'm sure that those of you who read this blog already know what the Tea Party is.  But for those of you who don't, let me clear up any misconceptions or flat-out lies you've heard from the mainstream media.  I'll do that by telling you what the Tea Party is not.
The Tea Party is not just a group of old, angry white people.  It consists of people from all different backgrounds, incomes, ethnicity, and status in society.  They are not racists.  That label has been thrown around very liberally, pardon the pun, by the left to anyone who dares to disagree with President Obama.  This is a cop-out to me since no other group has ever been given that label by disagreeing with a President in the past.  Don't be blind, racism exists in more than one direction.  Look at the Black Panthers, nuff said.  Most people in the Tea Party disagreed with the policies implemented by George W. Bush.  Their disagreements are motivated by ideology, not racial prejudice.  The Tea Party is not a bunch of dumb, uneducated redneck hicks.  They know more about the Constitution and American history than many of the ones in Washington, DC who should be experts on those subjects, our Congress and our President.
So here's what they Tea Party is.  They are a group of concerned American citizens who feel that this country is headed in the wrong direction, as most Americans do.  The difference is that those who have chosen to join the Tea Party are passionate enough to not sit idly by and watch the destruction happen.  They are taking a stand.  They know that increasing the size of government and reckless spending will never lead this country back to the level of greatness it once had.  They believe in small government and the free market system.  They believe that the government should live within its means and have a balanced budget.  Most importantly, they believe that ALL politicians need to be reminded that they work for the citizens of the United States of America, who voted them into office.  Not the special interest groups, lobbyists, or other politicians who offer sweetheart deals for their state in exchange for supporting a bill that they wouldn't ordinarily agree to.  And if they forget that, the Tea Party will work to get them voted out of office.  No rioting, no violence, just peaceful demonstration and the power of the ballot to make their voices heard.  If you agree with these principles, I beg you, don't sit on the sidelines anymore.  Look up your local Tea Party group and get involved, like I did.  You won't regret it.  May God Bless the Tea Party, and God Bless the Republic.

The Blame Game

It's natural when someone doesn't get their way to want to blame someone or something else if for no other reason than to make themselves feel better.  This is especially true in politics.  Not only so they can avoid blame to make themselves look better, but also so they can make those with opposing viewpoints look worse.  And why?  Votes.  That's it, pure and simple.  Everything that's done in Washington, DC, and in most governments for that matter, is done for votes.  A great example of this is the recent debt debate.  If you've watched the news, you know the result.  If not, here it is in a nutshell:  Spending cuts less than the Republicans wanted, a raise in the debt ceiling far less than the Democrats wanted, and no increase in taxes which the Dems also wanted but didn't get.  So, with the Democrats largely viewed as the loser in these proceedings, what did they do?  Surprisingly, they didn't attack the Republicans, but went straight after the Tea Party.  They painted the Tea Party as uncompromising and essentially holding the country hostage.  They even went so far to call the Tea Party "terrorists."  It's actually funny that this group of regular American citizens that not long ago were viewed as an insignificant group of 'right-wing nutjobs" are now viewed as a serious political force capable of bringing an entire country to its knees.  Truth is, the debt deal is not even close to what the Tea Party wanted, and the Democrats and Republicans both know this.  In fact, the Democrats were never going to get what they wanted because they didn't even know what they wanted.  The Senate had not even proposed a budget, let alone pass one, for over 2 1/2 years!!  They had a majority in the House when Obama was elected and a super majority in the Senate, and they did nothing!  Why?!  I believe they didn't pass a budget because when, not if but when, they couldn't create enough revenue to cover all their entitlement programs, they would have had to raise taxes on everyone, ensuring their defeat in the next election.  Doubt me?  What happened to President George H.W. Bush after his infamous "Read my lips, no new taxes" speech and he was later forced to agree to tax increases?  Right, he lost in the next election to Bill Clinton.  The Dems were not willing to take that chance.  Like I said earlier, it's all about votes.  Better to let the Republicans make the first move and then attack their plan, which is exactly what happened.  So when you hear the Democrats using their usual attack ads and scare tactics, ask yourself one thing:  What have they been doing to make things better and more secure for this nation's future?  The answer is nothing.  Unless you count lying to the American people and trying to collapse our economic system to install their nanny state programs, all the while blaming others for doing the very things they're guilty of, in that case, they've been quite busy.  Until next time, stay informed, question everything, and may God Bless the Republic.

The Great Debate

Well, since my last blog entry created quite the debate, its time for me to discuss several of my detractors points and even rant a little bit, but hey, its my blog!

OK, first off, I am sick and tired of Democrat and liberal arguments being about the rich, the rich, and ...oh yeah, the rich.  Tax the rich, make them pay their fair share, and on and on.  But why is it, when I brought up the FACT that 50% of Americans pay NO income tax at all, all I get is "the rich need to pay more!"  Now to be fair, it has been shown that GE paid no taxes at all in recent years.  So when this news came out, what did "the people's president" do to CEO Jeffrey Immelt?  HE PUT HIM ON HIS STAFF!!!!!!!!  Obama put Immelt on his team charged with job creation. And to his credit, Immelt is taking his new appointment seriously.  He's in the process of creating over 30 million jobs.....IN CHINA!  That's right, after receiving government bailout money, not paying any taxes, and receiving a presidential appointment, Immelt, who is still the CEO of GE (conflict of interest, anyone?), is shipping several million formerly American jobs to China.  And is it any coincidence that the news network that praises Obama endlessly, MSNBC, just happens to be owned by.....wait for it......GE?  I think not.  But I digress.  To say that the rich don't pay enough to me sounds hypocritical when half of the people in this country pay absolutely nothing in taxes. Nada. Zilch. Zero. What about their fair share?  Do they not use and are they not entitled to the same benefits as everyone else?  Yes they are.  In fact, I would go so far as to say not only do they use these benefits, they are the ones who are demanded they stay in place.  Basically, they want a free lunch, money for nothing, whatever metaphor you like.  Now, I will say that this country is in desperate need of tax reform.  If the rich don't pay their fair share, it's only because they (or more likely, their accountants) have found loopholes in the tax code to allow them to pay less.  Let's be honest here.  The U.S. tax code is so large it makes War and Peace look like a short story. It is so large and so convoluted that even Timothy Geitner, our Treasury Secretary, doesn't understand it. (But Geitner was confused by "TurboTax" so... )  The tax code needs a serious overhaul. Loopholes need to be closed, pointless deductions need to be removed, and the whole system needs to be simplified.  Most importantly, it needs to stop penalizing success. Our tax code is a progressive tax code, your tax rate goes up the more money you make, therefore it penalizes success.  We need either a flat income tax or a national sales tax, a consumption tax or fair tax, if you will, but not both.  This is why a flat tax is presently the better option.  The fair tax would only be feasible if it is preceded by a repeal of the 16th amendment.

Now before I continue, let me clear something up.  I am not rich,  Not even close.  I work 12 hours a day to care for my family.  I have a good job and a steady job.  I also know how incredibly lucky I am to have it.  There are millions of people today who are not as lucky as I am and would probably kill to get this job (don't get any ideas).  My conservative views are from a very simple standpoint.  I believe that you should be able to keep at least a solid majority of what you earn.  And that extends to all income levels, not just the rich.

While we're on the subject of the rich, it was brought up in the debate following the last blog that the rich, or at least most of them simply hoard their money and don't help the economy at all.  This view is so mind-numbingly stupid that I can't even put it into words, but I'll try.  Let's look at Obama's target of the moment - "corporate jet owners".  I'll use Donald Trump as an example since everyone identifies him with being rich.  When Mr. Trump buys a new jet, does it just pop out of thin air complete with staff courtesy of the corporate jet fairy?  Of course not.  Here's how buying a jet helps the economy.  When Trump orders the jet, he keeps engineers employed to design the jet, pilots to fly the jet, flight attendants to work the flights in that jet, mechanics to fix the jet, assembly line workers to build the jet, companies who make the parts the mechanics need to fix the jet, companies who make the tools the mechanics use to work on the jet, air traffic controllers keep their jobs, food companies that make the food that goes on the jet, delivery companies that deliver food, parts, etc. for the jet.  I could go on all day.  Now imagine if he orders 4 jets, or 8 jets.  And all the other corporations that have jets order 4 jets.  You get the picture.  And that's just corporate jets.  When a business is successful, do they just stay with their current equipment or do they expand?  Could you imagine if Coca-Cola only had one bottling plant?  Or Starbucks only running one coffee house? No.  They expand.  And in doing so, they put people to work.  That's leads to the next argument, that corporations only ship jobs overseas because labor is cheaper there.  That's true, labor is cheaper overseas, but why?  In a nutshell, labor unions.  Now don't misunderstand, labor unions were a great thing when they were created.  They put in place many, many worker protections that we as Americans, union or not, enjoy today.  However, they have driven the price of labor in this country so high, that it is increasingly difficult if not impossible, for businesses in this country to turn a profit.  And after all, a business that can't turn a profit is not a business for very long.  I would say that union leaders did not drive wages up to protect their workers, but to line their pockets with more revenue from union dues which they use to line the pockets of politicians.  Look it up.  The labor unions are some of the most generous supporters of Democratic candidate campaigns.  And when a business doesn't want to use a union, what happens? They are picketed, strong-armed and tormented until they either cave or the union gets bored and gives up.  Now I don't think unions are as necessary as they used to be since I have worked plenty of non-union jobs and I was not only well paid for those jobs, but was well protected by the policies of my employers.  I know I'm not alone.

Now let's move on to health care and education.  Let me state this as clearly as I can.  Neither health care nor  an education are rights.  Let me say it again.  Health care IS NOT A RIGHT.  Education IS NOT A RIGHT.  If you think they are, then you are confusing the Constitution of the United States with the Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.).  Yes, the USSR had health care and education as rights.  We all know what happened to them. Government health care doesn't do enough.  It's too large a burden on the government and its economy.  If you believed President Obama when he said that you could keep your doctor, keep your insurance, that everyone will be covered, that everyone will receive the care they need, and that it wouldn't add a penny to the national debt, then I've got some prime oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you.  Now, education.  Since the Department of Education was established by the President Jimmy Carter in 1979, student test scores have gone down and our standing as one of the top educating nations in the world has slipped to near the bottom.  In my opinion, this is just another example of when the government gets involved in something that is better left to the states, it only messes it up.  Don't get me wrong, I don't hate government.  Government is necessary.  But like everything else, its only good in moderation.  Our government has become too big and oppressive in its current state.  And no this is not a Democrat thing only, there have been Republicans guilty of it too, particularly George W. Bush.  No Child Left Behind has been an abysmal failure.  While we're on the subject of education, let me say that the teacher's union is ridiculous.  I abhor the concept of tenure because it makes getting rid of a bad teacher next to impossible.  There is a case of a teacher in New York who admitted, yes admitted, to attempting to molest a sixth-grade girl.  He was removed from the school, but was not fired.  He was paid $100,000 a year to do nothing.  Yes, a six-figure salary to sit at home and do nothing.  How?  The teacher's union, and the fact that he was tenured.  Tell me that makes any sense whatsoever.  I dare you.

Finally, let me challenge the President's assertion that this whole recession is the fault of George W. Bush.  It is true that the original stimulus was proposed by Bush.  It has been said he would have implemented it anyway and maybe he would have, but we'll never know.  That being said, if President Obama wanted to, he could have stopped it from ever being done.  He didn't.  And the whole bailout thing in my opinion was a sham.  This crisis was caused by greedy bankers who saw a gold mine in the skyrocketing real estate market and made loans in all sorts of creative ways to people who should have never gotten them.  The collapse was inevitable, but totally preventable.  Common sense was nowhere to be found.  So who did Obama bail out?  The very people who created this mess.  Brilliant.  And while the crisis started under Bush's watch, Obama was the one who ramped up government spending to unprecedented levels. He took over General Motors, albeit temporarily.  That was unprecedented.  He racked up an unconscionable level of debt and took the nation to the brink of default.  It is Obama's mess now.  You can't blame George W. Bush for this anymore.

Some have said that the systems in place in Europe are better and fairer than here in America.  To that I must ask, "Why are you still here?"  If the system is so to your liking, go there and stop trying to force it on those of us who don't want it.  I will admit that liberal ides like government health care, care for the poor and elderly all are very moral and noble ideas.  The problem is the implementation.  Someone has to pay for it.  And that's where my biggest issue is.

Let me close by saying the whole point of my last post was that "career politicians", you know who I mean, are all inherently corrupt and cannot be trusted.  They will do and say anything to stay in power.  President Obama has said that we should leave government dealings to the "career politicians" like himself.  I say that's how we got into this mess.  Thank God for the Tea Party and the freshmen congressmen who understand who they work for and hold to their values and convictions.  And like them, no amount of negative feedback or name-calling will shut me up or make me go away.  God Bless the Republic.