Political Commentary, Columns & Discussion

[SuBe]

I must say these articles are just as biaised as anything else. And the reality of all these economic policies when they will actually be applied are likely to be very different then what is portrayed on paper.

I am no left wing supporter; not by a mile and I actualy have read the works of Marx, Hegel and studied Keynesian economics. I have an understanding of them even though I am not an economist. I really think some of what is being said is quite ridiculous especially given the laws that have been passed recently.

Is Obama the ideal choice of who I would like to see as president? He is not but for me he is the only choice when you look at the alternative of the McCain/Palin ticket. the fact she was even elected as governor scares me. And to be brutally honest if McCain had chosen someone like Romney or if Romney was the Presidential candidate I may have supported someone else. But there is no way in hell I would support someone who chooses a running mate who seems wholly unqualified to serve in such a capacity especially when he is a cancer survivor and 72 years old.

The other point most people are ignoring is America's place in the international community. During the Reagan years, it was considerred by most as a benevelent force whereas now the general public outside of the US have a very bad opinion of the Country, one which does have an adverse impact on it. McCain along with Palin I believe would degrade the US's position internationally even further.

They are meant to be Biased. It's called Commentary. Commentary has no reason to be unbaised.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

I understand that but all the commentary is on one side and not the other.

 

[SuBe]

I understand that but all the commentary is on one side and not the other.

Then post something from the other side. I don't have to support the argument for those I disagree with. I'm posting articles from Columnists that I do agree with. I'm sharing.

If you want to post an article from the left, go ahead.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

Read pass the first sentence from my post before you suggest I post something from the left.

I have read your colums though and even if there are a few valid points ther is also quite allot of exageration of the application of his policies.

I am actually a bit surprised by your views because I do regard you to be very well educated per what I have read of your posts.

Do you really think that McCain/Palin would be beneficial to the US given the current recession we will be living through? Plus how would you see a Palin presidency which is not so much of a leap given that we are talking 4+4 years?

 

[SuBe]

Read pass the first sentence from my post before you suggest I post something from the left.

I have read your colums though and even if there are a few valid points ther is also quite allot of exageration of the application of his policies.

I am actually a bit surprised by your views because I do regard you to be very well educated per what I have read of your posts.

Do you really think that McCain/Palin would be beneficial to the US given the current recession we will be living through? Plus how would you see a Palin presidency which is not so much of a leap given that we are talking 4+4 years?

I did read your first sentence. But, I'm not going to post Left-Wing Articles to share. I generally don't read them.

I personally believe Mr. Obama to be very dangerous for our country. For several Reasons:

1. He will be bad for Small Business in if he taxes Corporations, He will be basically taking jobs away from the people he "swore" he wouldn't raise taxes on. So, yes, he gets to score on for not raising taxes on Middle Class, but what good is it when the middle class is out of a Job? Raising Taxes, even on Big Businesses affect either Jobs, Prices, or growth. All three of which affect the Middle Class.

2. If he wins, and Democrats get at least 60 seat in the Senate, anything the Democrats want to pass goes through. There will be no Checks and Balance because it will be a filibuster proof Senate. At least with McCain, he can be that one to Veto outrageous bills.

3. Within the next 4-8 years, we can expect at least 2 Supreme Court Justices to retire. In doing so he could empower the court to legislate from the Bench, instead of interpurting the Constitution as Written and completely ignoring the 10th Amendment, they can side with "feelings" and "fairness" instead of what the Constitution Allows.

4. He seems to believe, at least what he said in his 2001 Audio Tape that just surfaced, that the Constitution is old and outdated. He seems to think that the Constitution is the Government "granting" freedoms, instead of the Constitution limiting Government. There is a Big Difference.

5. He promises to "Spread the Wealth". I'm sorry, but my money is my money. My heartbeats went into earning my that Money. I put my life into earning what is mine, and even though I might not be a millionaire, but what if someday I am? Will I be hated? What if I have a business that employs 50 people in the US and Thousands of people across the world? My profits will be seized, and I can't reinvest into my business, or give raises to my best employees, or hell. If I employ thousands of people, those people only have jobs because of me. Why should I be punished and pay more taxes, and be one of the hated?

This country is not founded on Socialism, Marxism, or anything else other than Limited Government, low taxes, and freedom. I don't feel Obama brings that to the table.

If you want to know what else I read:

1. The FairTax Book by John Linder and Neal Boortz
2. Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

I hate connection to Nazism and Fascism being apart of a Rightwing/Conservative ideology.

It's not true. Look at what Obama's supporters have done. The Children singing their Obama songs in school. The "Militaristic" Pro-Obama support in that Video in that School were the kids were wearing Camo and Obama Shirts. Look at Obama's own statements were he wants to have a Civil equivalent to the Military, with the same funding. Sorry, that sounds too much like Brownshirts to me.

 

[SuBe]

Taxing Times
by Thomas Sowell

Chief Justice John Marshall said it all in one sentence: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."
It is not the money that is taxed away that is destroyed. What is destroyed is the wealth that does not get produced in the first place, because high taxes make its production not worthwhile.
Those who are receptive to Senator Barack Obama's plan to increase taxes on "the rich" seem not to understand that the issue is the nation's loss of wealth. Today, wealth can leave the country when heavy taxes threaten it-- instantly, in an age of electronic financial transfers-- and create jobs and economic growth overseas, instead of at home.
The two months between the time of a presidential election and the time when the new president takes office is an eternity in terms of how much money can be transferred out of the country electronically before any new high-tax laws can be enacted.
Like so much that is said glibly by Barack Obama, raising taxes on "the rich" has serious-- and potentially disastrous-- implications for the whole country that have been ignored amid the political euphoria.
Moreover, like so much that is proposed under the magic mantra of "change," it is something that has been tried before in many countries and failed before in many countries.
Much wealth from Third World countries flows out to richer countries like Switzerland or the United States, where it is safer from confiscation. Jack up the capital gains tax rate in the United States and more Americans can be expected to send their capital elsewhere.
That means sending jobs elsewhere, so that even people with no capital to invest lose employment opportunities.
Economists have trouble determining how many people are affected by a tax increase because those affected extend far beyond those who write the checks to pay the government.
Taxes on businesses can get passed along to consumers, in whole or in part, even though it is only the business that writes the check to the government.
Payroll taxes or government-mandated employee benefits may be paid for directly by the employer, but these costs reduce the value of an employee to the employer. If these costs add up to $10,000, for example, employers bidding for labor may bid $10,000 less in salary than they would have otherwise.
As in other cases, who writes the checks does not tell you who really pays the costs, since the worker is now $10,000 worse off. The idea that you can single out one segment of society to be taxed or mandated, for the benefit of the rest of society, is reminiscent of a San Francisco automobile dealer's sign: "We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you."
The economy is not a zero-sum game where someone gains what others lose. The whole economy can lose when ill-considered policies gain political popularity and stifle economic growth.
People who do not own a single share of corporate stock can still lose big time when capital gains taxes are raised-- not only because jobs can follow capital out of the country, but also because millions of working people's pension plans own corporate stock, and those people's retirement incomes will depend on the value of those stocks, which is reduced by capital gains taxes.
One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.
By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested.
Given the staggering cost of the government's financial bailouts, there is no way that Barack Obama's grandiose spending plans can be carried out without inflation.
When politicians start talking about taxing "the rich," remember the old saying: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

2. If he wins, and Democrats get at least 60 seat in the Senate, anything the Democrats want to pass goes through. There will be no Checks and Balance because it will be a filibuster proof Senate. At least with McCain, he can be that one to Veto outrageous bills.

Keep in mind I'm an independent with both likes and dislikes on either side of the line, but what kills me about Republicans is all of the fear-mongering their doing about the evil "liberal super majority" that could come to pass and how there will be no "checks and balances" etc. When we at one point a few years back had a Conservative super majority, where Bush was in the White House, they had majorities in both Houses of Congress and they appointed 3 Supreme Court justices including the Chief Judge giving them a 5 to 4 advantage on the court. Where was all the concern for "fairness" then?

Also keep in mind that "checks and balances" as it was installed into the Constitution is a balance between branches of the government, not a check of one political party against another. One branch will invariably keep the others from getting too powerful or out of line regardless if they have a majority within the same party. The legislature doesnt like having its toes stepped on by the Judicial or Executive branches and vice versa. So to imply that the Constitutional system of Checks and Balances would be rendered null by a liberal majority in all 3 branches is outright false.

3. Within the next 4-8 years, we can expect at least 2 Supreme Court Justices to retire. In doing so he could empower the court to legislate from the Bench, instead of interpurting the Constitution as Written and completely ignoring the 10th Amendment, they can side with "feelings" and "fairness" instead of what the Constitution Allows..

Your logic here assumes that all conservative judges are strict constructionists and liberal judges all take an interpetive approach to jurisprudence. When in fact that's not the case. Allow me to introduce you to Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas.....

 

[SuBe]

Keep in mind I'm an independent with both likes and dislikes on either side of the line, but what kills me about Republicans is all of the fear-mongering their doing about the evil "liberal super majority" that could come to pass and how there will be no "checks and balances" etc. When we at one point a few years back had a Conservative super majority, where Bush was in the White House, they had majorities in both Houses of Congress and they appointed 3 Supreme Court justices including the Chief Judge giving them a 5 to 4 advantage on the court. Where was all the concern for "fairness" then?

Also keep in mind is that "checks and balances" as it was installed into the Constitution is a balance between branches of the government, not a check of one political party against another.

They did have a Marority, but it wasn't a Super Majority. It wasn't filibuster proof.

And, stricly speaking, Conservative Judges tend to rule on the Constitution, not what is fair. We have laws for a reason.

And, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. Plus, all of the Articles I've posted were written by Libertarians.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

I did read your first sentence. But, I'm not going to post Left-Wing Articles to share. I generally don't read them.

I personally believe Mr. Obama to be very dangerous for our country. For several Reasons:

1. He will be bad for Small Business in if he taxes Corporations, He will be basically taking jobs away from the people he "swore" he wouldn't raise taxes on. So, yes, he gets to score on for not raising taxes on Middle Class, but what good is it when the middle class is out of a Job? Raising Taxes, even on Big Businesses affect either Jobs, Prices, or growth. All three of which affect the Middle Class.

2. If he wins, and Democrats get at least 60 seat in the Senate, anything the Democrats want to pass goes through. There will be no Checks and Balance because it will be a filibuster proof Senate. At least with McCain, he can be that one to Veto outrageous bills.

3. Within the next 4-8 years, we can expect at least 2 Supreme Court Justices to retire. In doing so he could empower the court to legislate from the Bench, instead of interpurting the Constitution as Written and completely ignoring the 10th Amendment, they can side with "feelings" and "fairness" instead of what the Constitution Allows.

4. He seems to believe, at least what he said in his 2001 Audio Tape that just surfaced, that the Constitution is old and outdated. He seems to think that the Constitution is the Government "granting" freedoms, instead of the Constitution limiting Government. There is a Big Difference.

5. He promises to "Spread the Wealth". I'm sorry, but my money is my money. My heartbeats went into earning my that Money. I put my life into earning what is mine, and even though I might not be a millionaire, but what if someday I am? Will I be hated? What if I have a business that employs 50 people in the US and Thousands of people across the world? My profits will be seized, and I can't reinvest into my business, or give raises to my best employees, or hell. If I employ thousands of people, those people only have jobs because of me. Why should I be punished and pay more taxes, and be one of the hated?

This country is not founded on Socialism, Marxism, or anything else other than Limited Government, low taxes, and freedom. I don't feel Obama brings that to the table.

If you want to know what else I read:

1. The FairTax Book by John Linder and Neal Boortz
2. Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

I hate connection to Nazism and Fascism being apart of a Rightwing/Conservative ideology.

It's not true. Look at what Obama's supporters have done. The Children singing their Obama songs in school. The "Militaristic" Pro-Obama support in that Video in that School were the kids were wearing Camo and Obama Shirts. Look at Obama's own statements were he wants to have a Civil equivalent to the Military, with the same funding. Sorry, that sounds too much like Brownshirts to me.

Regarding your last paragraph the same could be said of some Palin supporters so really I do not see much difference there. Extremists exist in both camps and I disagree strongly with both of them.

Working my way back, I also agree with the flat tax which I first read about in a small french economy booklet over 15 years ago which advocated the abolition of the prgressive tax system which was created to appeal politically to the masses. You have no argument with me there but i still do not see either candidate enacting it so therfore I find the point moot.

Regarding points 2 and 3, I do agree there is a real danger but I have hopes there owuld be enough dissension within the political parties to prevent an outright control especialy given the two party system holds many different views with it.

Points 1 and 5 do regard similar points and I think they are worth discussing. The issue here is looking at the alternatives within the current economy and the recession which it is or will be in. regarding small business owners, the real tax hike is not significant if you really examine it given the is based on income before tax figures and not on revenue. if tere was a true tightening of the systems all the loopholes would first dissappear and from what I can see not much will be done about that. Plus the budget is running at a current deficit which needs to be controlled if not reduced. The government does need to control its expenditure and increase its revenue....unfortunately. Now, given Obama's plan as written does not control the expenditure but my opinion is that he will not get half the things he suggests done in front of the realities of the world. Do you actually think under McCain, the Bush tax cuts will remain without having an adverse effect on the economy.

Point 4 I do not know enough about to comment in so far that I never heard the audio tape. Taking you at your word, I can see how such a view could be taken the wrong way but do you think he will really have the power to do away with the Constitution? I do not.

What are your opinions of McCain and especially Palin?

 

[SuBe]

Regarding your last paragraph the same could be said of some Palin supporters so really I do not see much difference there. Extremists exist in both camps and I disagree strongly with both of them.

Working my way back, I also agree with the flat tax which I first read about in a small french economy booklet over 15 years ago which advocated the abolition of the prgressive tax system which was created to appeal politically to the masses. You have no argument with me there but i still do not see either candidate enacting it so therfore I find the point moot.

Regarding points 2 and 3, I do agree there is a real danger but I have hopes there owuld be enough dissension within the political parties to prevent an outright control especialy given the two party system holds many different views with it.

Points 1 and 5 do regard similar points and I think they are worth discussing. The issue here is looking at the alternatives within the current economy and the recession which it is or will be in. regarding small business owners, the real tax hike is not significant if you really examine it given the is based on income before tax figures and not on revenue. if tere was a true tightening of the systems all the loopholes would first dissappear and from what I can see not much will be done about that. Plus the budget is running at a current deficit which needs to be controlled if not reduced. The government does need to control its expenditure and increase its revenue....unfortunately. Now, given Obama's plan as written does not control the expenditure but my opinion is that he will not get half the things he suggests done in front of the realities of the world. Do you actually think under McCain, the Bush tax cuts will remain without having an adverse effect on the economy.

Point 4 I do not know enough about to comment in so far that I never heard the audio tape. Taking you at your word, I can see how such a view could be taken the wrong way but do you think he will really have the power to do away with the Constitution? I do not.

What are your opinions of McCain and especially Palin?

The deal with the Constitution on Point 4, while a tricky one. Obama is not the First President to make such a comment. I believe Woodrow Wilson was the First, or at least the furthest back I've read about. It's dangerous to have a politican not believe in the priciples laid forth in the Constitution, or even understand that the Constitution is a document Limiting the Powers of the Government, not a document Granting People rights. Those rights are "God given" and belong to all people. I believe this in so far as, say Universal Healthcare would "enslave" the doctors to require them to proform Health services. I believe you would take away rights from that Doctor, even though it may be for the good of the Patient.

I believe that this will harm the foundation of Freedoms, and set a harmful precident on our Nation. Granting Powers to Government we can't afford.

I don't like the idea of dependance on Government, our founding fathers knew of the dangers of such a thing. A Government that can give you anything, can take it all away.


As for your question about McCain/Palin. I feel they are the lesser of 2 evils. I believe that McCain has always loved this country, the way it is. They believe this nation is great, but not perfect. They don't want to change anything about it. I believe they want everyone to have the oppurtunity to grow. Not, force someone to pay for their success.

I have always been told, if you work hard and study, you can be anything. I don't believe that if you are accomplished, and succeed, you need to be punished. I equate Paying more Percentage of taxes as punishment.

Small Business is the Key to Employment and oppurtunity. If you "punish" those that supply the job, they will not expand, charge more, or cut costs, and Labor is one of the easiest ways to reduce Costs.

I agree with you about the Flat tax, the problem is, our Income Tax code started as a 6% flat tax, and look at the monster it has become.

There was a time when the Income Tax was Un-Constitutional. But, when they tricked Americans and passed the 16th Amendment, we, as a people lost power. This Government used to be "For the People, by the People", now that just a Bumper Sticker for the Ignorant Masses to put on their cars. We are not free is we continue down a failed path of Economic and Legislative Tyrrany.

I fear the day, when we have to depend on Government for every day transaction. They will be there to birth us, educate us, employ us, and bury us. If we give them that, this experiment in Freedom has lost.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I fear the day, when we have to depend on Government for every day transaction. They will be there to birth us, educate us, employ us, and bury us. If we give them that, this experiment in Freedom has lost.

As do I, SuBe. And I fear that Pres. Obama will hasten that a whole lot faster than McCain ever would.

 

[USMC]

And, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. Plus, all of the Articles I've posted were written by Libertarians.

So you're voting for Barr then...

 

[Ahura Mazda]

The deal with the Constitution on Point 4, while a tricky one. Obama is not the First President to make such a comment. I believe Woodrow Wilson was the First, or at least the furthest back I've read about. It's dangerous to have a politican not believe in the priciples laid forth in the Constitution, or even understand that the Constitution is a document Limiting the Powers of the Government, not a document Granting People rights. Those rights are "God given" and belong to all people. I believe this in so far as, say Universal Healthcare would "enslave" the doctors to require them to proform Health services. I believe you would take away rights from that Doctor, even though it may be for the good of the Patient.

I believe that this will harm the foundation of Freedoms, and set a harmful precident on our Nation. Granting Powers to Government we can't afford.

I don't like the idea of dependance on Government, our founding fathers knew of the dangers of such a thing. A Government that can give you anything, can take it all away.

I understand your point and with your belief on how much the government should get involved, I do get your opinion. The question is the degree of that involvement. Given the current state of the economy, I think they are already heavily involved and I do not see that involvement lessening in the immediate future no matter who wins the white house. On another note, I believe health care is a sticky point. It is debatable what type of coverage there should be and I find both points to be valid when looked at from certain angles. Personally, I would like the freedom of doing what I want but that is also because I have the means. Should someone who does not have the same means at me be left to die? I am not asking to be provocative because honestly I am not sure of my own answer. I would alo like to add that certain industries, if they were completely private, may lead to a market equilibrium which would cause distress to the economy.

As for your question about McCain/Palin. I feel they are the lesser of 2 evils. I believe that McCain has always loved this country, the way it is. They believe this nation is great, but not perfect. They don't want to change anything about it. I believe they want everyone to have the oppurtunity to grow. Not, force someone to pay for their success.

I have always been told, if you work hard and study, you can be anything. I don't believe that if you are accomplished, and succeed, you need to be punished. I equate Paying more Percentage of taxes as punishment.

Small Business is the Key to Employment and oppurtunity. If you "punish" those that supply the job, they will not expand, charge more, or cut costs, and Labor is one of the easiest ways to reduce Costs.

I agree with you about the Flat tax, the problem is, our Income Tax code started as a 6% flat tax, and look at the monster it has become.

There was a time when the Income Tax was Un-Constitutional. But, when they tricked Americans and passed the 16th Amendment, we, as a people lost power. This Government used to be "For the People, by the People", now that just a Bumper Sticker for the Ignorant Masses to put on their cars. We are not free is we continue down a failed path of Economic and Legislative Tyrrany.

I fear the day, when we have to depend on Government for every day transaction. They will be there to birth us, educate us, employ us, and bury us. If we give them that, this experiment in Freedom has lost.

The funny thing is here I agree with most of what you say except that I feel contrary to you Obama is the lesser evil especialy when I look at the big picture.

Whatever the result, we will be entering difficult times.

 

[SentinelMind]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html

There is something odd -- and dare I say novel -- in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right.


Martin KozlowskiAs the late Nobel laureate Elias Canetti observes in his great book, "Crowds and Power" (first published in 1960), the crowd is based on an illusion of equality: Its quest is for that moment when "distinctions are thrown off and all become equal. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd." These crowds, in the tens of thousands, who have been turning out for the Democratic standard-bearer in St. Louis and Denver and Portland, are a measure of American distress.

On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen. Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish. The coalition that has propelled his quest -- African-Americans and affluent white liberals -- has no economic coherence. But for the moment, there is the illusion of a common undertaking -- Canetti's feeling of equality within the crowd. The day after, the crowd will of course discover its own fissures. The affluent will have to pay for the programs promised the poor. The redistribution agenda that runs through Mr. Obama's vision is anathema to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and the hedge-fund managers now smitten with him. Their ethos is one of competition and the justice of the rewards that come with risk and effort. All this is shelved, as the devotees sustain the candidacy of a man whose public career has been a steady advocacy of reining in the market and organizing those who believe in entitlement and redistribution.

A creature of universities and churches and nonprofit institutions, the Illinois senator, with the blessing and acquiescence of his upscale supporters, has glided past these hard distinctions. On the face of it, it must be surmised that his affluent devotees are ready to foot the bill for the new order, or are convinced that after victory the old ways will endure, and that Mr. Obama will govern from the center. Ambiguity has been a powerful weapon of this gifted candidate: He has been different things to different people, and he was under no obligation to tell this coalition of a thousand discontents, and a thousand visions, the details of his political programs: redistribution for the poor, postracial absolution and "modernity" for the upper end of the scale.

It was no accident that the white working class was the last segment of the population to sign up for the Obama journey. Their hesitancy was not about race. They were men and women of practicality; they distrusted oratory, they could see through the falseness of the solidarity offered by this campaign. They did not have much, but believed in the legitimacy of what little they had acquired. They valued work and its rewards. They knew and heard of staggering wealth made by the Masters of the Universe, but held onto their faith in the outcomes that economic life decreed. The economic hurricane that struck America some weeks ago shook them to the core. They now seek protection, the shelter of the state, and the promise of social repair. The bonuses of the wizards who ran the great corporate entities had not bothered them. It was the spectacle of the work of the wizards melting before our eyes that unsettled them.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator from New York, once set the difference between American capitalism and the older European version by observing that America was the party of liberty, whereas Europe was the party of equality. Just in the nick of time for the Obama candidacy, the American faith in liberty began to crack. The preachers of America's decline in the global pecking order had added to the panic. Our best days were behind us, the declinists prophesied. The sun was setting on our imperium, and rising in other lands.

A younger man, "cool" and collected, carrying within his own biography the strands of the world beyond America's shores, was put forth as a herald of the change upon us. The crowd would risk the experiment. There was grudge and a desire for retribution in the crowd to begin with. Akin to the passions that have shaped and driven highly polarized societies, this election has at its core a desire to settle the unfinished account of the presidential election eight years ago. George W. Bush's presidency remained, for his countless critics and detractors, a tale of usurpation. He had gotten what was not his due; more galling still, he had been bold and unabashed, and taken his time at the helm as an opportunity to assert an ambitious doctrine of American power abroad. He had waged a war of choice in Iraq.

This election is the rematch that John Kerry had not delivered on. In the fashion of the crowd that seeks and sees the justice of retribution, Mr. Obama's supporters have been willing to overlook his means. So a candidate pledged to good government and to ending the role of money in our political life opts out of public financing of presidential campaigns. What of it? The end justifies the means.

Save in times of national peril, Americans have been sober, really minimalist, in what they expected out of national elections, out of politics itself. The outcomes that mattered were decided in the push and pull of daily life, by the inventors and the entrepreneurs, and the captains of industry and finance. To be sure, there was a measure of willfulness in this national vision, for politics and wars guided the destiny of this republic. But that American sobriety and skepticism about politics -- and leaders -- set this republic apart from political cultures that saw redemption lurking around every corner.

My boyhood, and the Arab political culture I have been chronicling for well over three decades, are anchored in the Arab world. And the tragedy of Arab political culture has been the unending expectation of the crowd -- the street, we call it -- in the redeemer who will put an end to the decline, who will restore faded splendor and greatness. When I came into my own, in the late 1950s and '60s, those hopes were invested in the Egyptian Gamal Abdul Nasser. He faltered, and broke the hearts of generations of Arabs. But the faith in the Awaited One lives on, and it would forever circle the Arab world looking for the next redeemer.

America is a different land, for me exceptional in all the ways that matter. In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession -- its imagination.

From Elias Canetti again: "But the crowd, as such, disintegrates. It has a presentiment of this and fears it. . . . Only the growth of the crowd prevents those who belong to it from creeping back under their private burdens."

The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat -- by now unthinkable to the devotees -- will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won't be solved by a leader's magic.

Mr. Ajami is professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and an adjunct research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

 

[SuBe]

A Perfect Storm
by Thomas Sowell

Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.

Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.

Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy-- and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat-- yet.

America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.

Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.

What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.

None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions-- none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.

 

[SuBe]

CHUMP CHANGE

Obama did an interview with MTV ... this is where he is a true American Idol. But the interview is extremely telling. And yet I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that none of the government educated teenagers listening to this interview can even begin to understand what this man is actually saying. Here are some excerpts:

MTV: Our next question is from Matt from Iowa: "If your desire is to spread the wealth around, what incentive is there for me to try to work hard? If I am only going to get more taken away from me, the more money I make, why wouldn't I just slide into a life of relaxation and let rich people take care of me? And a lot of people are asking similar questions, and I wanted you to specify. What does this mean exactly?"

Obama: What is amazing to me is this whole notion that somehow everybody is just looking out for themselves ... You don't just give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. What you do is make sure the tax code is fair ... So this idea, that somehow everybody is just on their own and shouldn't be concerned about other people who are coming up behind them, that's the kind of attitude that I want to end when I am president.
​

Did you catch that, folks? As president, Barack Obama is going to end this idea of self-reliance. He is going to make sure that government is there to tell you when you should be concerned about the people behind you, and he is going to make sure that government is there to take your money to help these people. We have already established that wanting to keep the money that you earn is "selfish" according to Obama. On the other hand, wanting the money that someone else has earned isn't selfish. We also need to say that it was refreshing to see this particular question ... especially on MTV.
Another one:

MTV: Just out of curiosity, for those that are being taxed that are making more than $250,000 a year, how much difference would it be from how they are being taxed today?

Obama: Well, right now, they are getting taxed at 36 percent. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, they were being taxed at 39.6 percent. You are talking about a 3.6 percent difference, and for the average person who is making half a million, a million dollars ... that's chump change, that's nothing ...
​

So there you go. The reason that Obama will increase taxes on the evil rich is because that is "chump change" to them. It's money they just don't need. I'm sure that is not what the people who earned it think. But what do they know? It is now the government's role to take that chump change and make sure that you aren't being selfish with it.
This is the type of leftist nonsense that Obama has been spreading in his stump speeches. Just yesterday in Jacksonville, where I just spent the weekend, Obama said, "The choice in this election isn't between tax cuts and no tax cuts. It's about whether you believe we should only reward wealth, or whether we should also reward the work and workers who create it." What is wrong with this picture? If by "wealth" you mean the business owners who created the jobs for these workers ... then ask these workers where they would get a job without the evil rich people to create them.
This isn't a question about rewarding wealth over work. Work creates wealth. Obama paints the picture that rich people are being somehow rewarded because they are rich; that being rich is just some status in life that was bestowed on them at the expense of others. This is anti-achievement rhetoric. Achievers bug Democrats because achievers understand that they can realize their dream without the government taking from others to give to them. Achievers must be demonized. If more people figure out that the road to wealth lies in hard work and determination then the role of government, and the power of politicians, will be lessened. Democrats and Obama want Americans to think that the only way they are going to have an adequate standard of living is for the government to take from those who have worked harder and smarter, and give to them. The inevitable result is that there are going to be fewer people willing to work hard to achieve wealth, and more people standing by for their government handouts. Even the government-educated can figure out where that is going to take us.

 

[SoulManX]

Thanks soulmanx. I got you pm btw. I tried to reply but you need to fix you settings to allow pm reciepts. I want to have that conversation with you.

Hey I will get back to you with that conversion after the election ok?

 

[Nitehawk013]

You aren't saying anything new. anyone with half a brain, who hasn't been hypnotized or fallen down to worship the Obamessiah, knows he is trash and his whole platform is "lets have a big government who will take care of you from cradle to grave". They know that if they can get people to cast off self-reliance and instead become a nation of Government dependants they are buying the electorate forever.

 

[SuBe]

Hey I will get back to you with that conversion after the election ok?

Great, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[SuBe]

Religious Right R.I.P.
by Cal Thomas

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements -- from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) -- had mixed results.

Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren't anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early '70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans," not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God's love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?

Such a strategy could be more "transformational" than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.

God teaches in His Word that His power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow's mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one's self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior "kingdom"?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.

 

[SuBe]

Progressivism's Achilles Heel
by Jonah Goldberg


Behold the cultural contradictions of progressivism.

Barack Obama's victory was a huge win for self-described progressives. Arguably the most liberal presidential nominee in American history, Obama has given some very old ideas an aura of new coolness. Congrats on all that. Hope it works out for you.

But something interesting happened on Election Day that didn't get much attention. Bans on gay marriage were on ballots in several states, and they all won. In fact, gay marriage bans have ultimately passed in all 30 of the states in which they were on the ballot.

The ban in California was particularly intriguing. Proposition 8 would have failed in the Golden State if it were up to white voters, who opposed it by a 51-49 ratio. What carried it over the top was enormous support from black voters, with about 70 percent of them backing it. Hispanics also supported the ban by significant, though smaller, margins. In Florida, where a similar ban required a 60 percent margin, Amendment 2 just barely passed, getting 60 percent of the white vote. The cushion came from blacks, who voted 71 percent in favor, and Latinos, who voted 64 percent in favor.

In other words, Obama had some major un-progressive coattails. The tidal wave of black and Hispanic voters who came out to support Obama voted in enormous numbers against what most white liberals consider to be the foremost civil rights issue of the day.

Put aside the substance of the gay marriage debate; what's fascinating is how these returns expose the underlying weakness, or at least vulnerability, of progressivism.

As a matter of practical politics, contemporary liberalism amounts to a coalitional ideology, while conservatism remains an ideological coalition. The Democratic Party is the party of various groups promising to scratch each other's backs. Gay rights activists and longshoreman coexist in the same party because they promise support on each other's issues.

The Republican Party is different. It says to voters, if you believe seven, eight or even 10 out of the 10 things we believe, you should be a Republican. Obviously, there are coalitions on the right and ideologues on the left, but I think the generalization remains valid.

But sometimes a tactical orientation can be confused for an ideological principle. That's why the left places such high value on unity, solidarity and a no-enemies-on-the-left mentality. That's why Obama preached endlessly about unity and the evils of being "divisive" or "distracted" from what really matters.

Another example of a tactic masquerading as a principle is contemporary liberalism's fixation with the idea that the working and middle class should "vote their interests," by which they mean vote for the most government goodies. This was the point of Obama's "bitter" and "clinging" comments last summer. Those poor deluded souls in western Pennsylvania don't understand that their real interests lie with Obama's economic agenda.

For all the liberal protests claiming that Obama's "bitter" comments were misunderstood, his remarks were, in fact, mainstream on the left. For instance, Thomas Frank, something of a guru to angry liberals, wrote in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that, "People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement is the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests." And, he added at great length, it is the reason so many deluded working- and middle-class Americans vote Republican (or at least why so many did when Frank wrote his book).

This has always struck me as hypocritical, pernicious lunacy. Legitimate election issues are those issues voters decide are legitimate. Americans who cling to religion and guns don't do so out of bitterness, but because they consider such things central to their understanding of the good life and resent what they perceive as hostility to their lifestyle from their own government. And no liberal opposes voting on values issues -- including gay rights -- when they think they're right or if they believe it helps get liberals elected. Liberals denounce rich people who vote their interests as "greedy" and celebrate limousine liberals who vote against their own interests as heroes. And at least some of the folks who voted for Obama did so not because of their pocketbooks, but because of the symbolism inherent to Obama's candidacy.

Regardless, Obama clearly succeeded in convincing enough Americans that a vote for him was in their interest. But he was incapable of convincing even his biggest supporters to vote their interests as he defined them and nothing else. That's because Americans are defined by more than their paychecks, a fact I expect Barack Obama will come to appreciate more and more in the days ahead.

 

[SuBe]

The Perfect Stimulus Package
by Neal Boortz

There’s a lot of talk in Washington about yet another so-called “stimulus” package. If the next one is anything like the last one it will simply be a mechanism for taking money away from people who aren’t spending it the way politicians would like, and transferring it to people who will. Our soon-to-be ruler feels like adding some grandiose public works projects (raking leaves in a National Forest) to the list.

Let’s break away from these political stimulus ideas for a few minutes and study an absolutely brilliant idea from Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Now Louie hasn’t been around the halls of congress all that much (just three years) so he is not yet all that acclimated to the Washington lust for absolute power. If he were, he never would have come up with this idea.

You’ve heard of K.I.S.S., haven’t you? This acronym is a standard for sales weasels everywhere. Keep It Simple, Stupid; and that’s exactly what Gohmert has done to the stimulus idea. He kept it simple. The problem is … government doesn’t do simple.

Here’s the deal. The Imperial Federal Government of the United States collects about $167 billion a month in income and withholding taxes. The Congress has already passed a $700 billion stimulus bill, and about a half of that is gone, leaving $350 billion of your money in the pot. Some have suggested that this $350 billion be left as some sort of a bailout/stimulus slush fund for the incoming Obama Administration. In other words … let the politicians figure out how to spend it. Gohmert thinks it might be a better idea to allow the people who actually earned this $350 billion to spend it as they see fit. OK, if you have any appreciation at all for the concept of economic freedom that sounds like a good idea; but how do you make it work in this instance.

First, a math problem. Divide $350 billion, the amount of the bailout bill not yet spent or promised, by the $167 billion per month our government collects in income and payroll taxes. I know … government educated. So we’ll make it easy and round it off to two. The $350 billion is just a bit over two times the amount of income and payroll taxes our government seizes in one month.

OK .. here’s where the K.I.S.S. comes in. The government simply absorbs the remaining $350 billion from the stimulus bill and suspends the collection of all income and payroll taxes for two months. Even trade. This means that for two months you get your entire paycheck (well … less any State withholding). The government ends up with the same amount of money in its coffers, and the income earners in this country have some extra money to spend – an average about $2,000 per taxpayer – over the following two months.

First let me tell you why this is such a great idea. This plan puts the economic stimulus money right into the hands of the people who actually earned it in the first place. Can you imagine that? The people who earned the money get to decide how it is spent! The people who are driving our economy by working and earning enough money to pay income taxes get to pick the marketplace winners and losers as they spend their stimulus dollars! The politicians don’t get to chose who will have stimulus money to spend, and they don’t get to decide how that money will be spent. Isn’t it wonderful to just think about taking power away from politicians!

Now that I have you all charged up, let me give you two good reasons why the Gohmert plan is doomed from the start. Actually, I’ve already given you one reason. With the Gohmert plan the politicians don’t get to decide who gets to spend the stimulus money. This doesn’t thrill politicians. Somehow the very act of getting elected to high office seems to imbue politicians with some sort of a supernatural power to know exactly how every dollar in our economy is to be spent. The Gohmert plan would take that right away from them. Those Washington creatures are mostly Democrats. They want people who vote for Democrats to spend that money, not evil entrepreneurs and high-achievers who show this nasty little tendency to vote Republican.

The second reason this Gohmert plan (as brilliant as it is) is toast would be because for two months it would allow income-earners to see exactly how much they earn. Up until now these people have been operating on the basis of their “take-home” pay. Ask them what they actually made in any pay period and they wouldn’t have a clue. When they get four bi-weekly paychecks with no withholding their eyes are likely to bug out like a stomped-on bullfrog. Can you imagine what happens after two months and those income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax figures show up on their paycheck stubs again? Well, the political class surely can; and it has something to do with pitchforks, baseball bats and a march on Washington. Tax Revolt.

Could something like this actually make its way through our Congress? Sure it could … if the voters demanded it. But hey …let’s get serious. I wonder what sort of celebrity dirt they’re going to dig up on Entertainment Tonight this evening?

 

[The Senator]

How to Fix a Flat
Thomas Friedman, New York Times

Last September, I was in a hotel room watching CNBC early one morning. They were interviewing Bob Nardelli, the C.E.O. of Chrysler, and he was explaining why the auto industry, at that time, needed $25 billion in loan guarantees. It wasn’t a bailout, he said. It was a way to enable the car companies to retool for innovation. I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: “We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation?” If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting?

How could these companies be so bad for so long? Clearly the combination of a very un-innovative business culture, visionless management and overly generous labor contracts explains a lot of it. It led to a situation whereby General Motors could make money only by selling big, gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s and trucks. Therefore, instead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers.

This included striking special deals with Congress that allowed the Detroit automakers to count the mileage of gas guzzlers as being more than they really were — provided they made some cars flex-fuel capable for ethanol. It included special offers of $1.99-a-gallon gasoline for a year to any customer who purchased a gas guzzler. And it included endless lobbying to block Congress from raising the miles-per-gallon requirements. The result was an industry that became brain dead.

Nothing typified this more than statements like those of Bob Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman. He has been quoted as saying that hybrids like the Toyota Prius “make no economic sense.” And, in February, D Magazine of Dallas quoted him as saying that global warming “is a total crock of [expletive].”

These are the guys taxpayers are being asked to bail out.

And please, spare me the alligator tears about G.M.’s health care costs. Sure, they are outrageous. “But then why did G.M. refuse to lift a finger to support a national health care program when Hillary Clinton was pushing for it?” asks Dan Becker, a top environmental lobbyist.

Not every automaker is at death’s door. Look at this article that ran two weeks ago on autochannel.com: “ALLISTON, Ontario, Canada — Honda of Canada Mfg. officially opened its newest investment in Canada — a state-of-the art $154 million engine plant. The new facility will produce 200,000 fuel-efficient four-cylinder engines annually for Civic production in response to growing North American demand for vehicles that provide excellent fuel economy.”

The blame for this travesty not only belongs to the auto executives, but must be shared equally with the entire Michigan delegation in the House and Senate, virtually all of whom, year after year, voted however the Detroit automakers and unions instructed them to vote. That shielded General Motors, Ford and Chrysler from environmental concerns, mileage concerns and the full impact of global competition that could have forced Detroit to adapt long ago.

Indeed, if and when they do have to bury Detroit, I hope that all the current and past representatives and senators from Michigan have to serve as pallbearers. And no one has earned the “honor” of chief pallbearer more than the Michigan Representative John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who is more responsible for protecting Detroit to death than any single legislator.

O.K., now that I have all that off my chest, what do we do? I am as terrified as anyone of the domino effect on industry and workers if G.M. were to collapse. But if we are going to use taxpayer money to rescue Detroit, then it should be done along the lines proposed in The Wall Street Journal on Monday by Paul Ingrassia, a former Detroit bureau chief for that paper.

“In return for any direct government aid,” he wrote, “the board and the management [of G.M.] should go. Shareholders should lose their paltry remaining equity. And a government-appointed receiver — someone hard-nosed and nonpolitical — should have broad power to revamp G.M. with a viable business plan and return it to a private operation as soon as possible. That will mean tearing up existing contracts with unions, dealers and suppliers, closing some operations and selling others and downsizing the company ... Giving G.M. a blank check — which the company and the United Auto Workers union badly want, and which Washington will be tempted to grant — would be an enormous mistake.”

I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.

Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.

 

[SuBe]

Rich People Versus Politicians
by Walter E. Williams

Sometimes I wish there were a humane way to get rid of the rich. Without the rich for whipping boys, we might be able to concentrate on what's best for the 99 and a half percent of the rest of us.

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, with about $60 billion in assets each, are America's richest men. With all that money, what can they force us to do? Can they take our house to make room so that another person can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run retirement Ponzi scheme called Social Security? Can Buffett and Gates force us to bus our children to schools out of our neighborhood in the name of diversity? Unless they are granted power by politicians, rich people have little power to force us to do anything.

A GS-9, or a lowly municipal clerk, has far more life-and-death power over us. It's they to whom we must turn to for permission to build a house, ply a trade, open a restaurant and a myriad of other activities. It's government people, not rich people, who have the power to coerce and make our lives miserable. Coercive power goes a long way toward explaining political corruption.


http://magazine.townhall.com/coulter

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's hawking of Barack Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat; Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel's alleged tax writing favors; former Rep. William Jefferson's business bribes; and the Jack Abramoff scandal are mere pimples on the government corruption landscape. We can think of these and similar acts as jailable illegal corruption. They pale in comparison to what's for all practical purposes the same thing, but simply legal corruption.

For example, according to the Miami Herald, by March 2008, the powerful Florida Fanjul sugar family had given over $300,000 to politicians and political committees. They didn't fork over all that money to help politicians to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Like businessmen who approach Charlie Rangel, Rod Blagojevich and William Jefferson, they give politicians money because they want a favor in return -- namely import restrictions on sugar so they can charge Americans higher prices. In the case of the Fanjuls, and thousands of others buying favors, they are engaged in legal corruption.
Legalized corruption is widespread and that's the job of 35,000 Washington, D.C., lobbyists earning millions upon millions of dollars. They represent America's big and small corporations, big and small labor unions and even foreign corporations and unions. They are not spending billions of dollars in political contributions to encourage and assist the White House and Congress to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. They are spending that money in the expectations of favors that will be bestowed upon them at the expense of some other American or group of Americans.

This power helps explain, for example, why a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee, not to mention its chairmanship, is so highly coveted. For the right price, a tax loophole, saving a company tens of millions of dollars, can be inserted into tax law, a la the Charlie Rangel scandal. At state levels, governors can award public works contracts to a generous constituent. At the local levels mayors can confer favors such as providing subsidies for sports stadia and convention centers. When politicians can give favors, they will find buyers.

The McCain-Feingold law was to get "money out of politics" but more money was spent in the 2008 election cycle than ever. The only way to reduce corruption and money in Washington is to reduce the power politicians have over our lives. James Madison was right when he suggested, "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." Thomas Jefferson warned, "The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers." That's what today's Americans have given Washington -- unlimited powers.

 

[SuBe]

There is a better stimulus plan out there
by Neal Boortz

We now have the benefit of PEBO’s* general position on a plan to stimulate our economy. Government shall be our savior. We shall not want. More specifically, government spending. About $800 billion (probably more) will be created out of thin air and then spent by politicians and their cronies in an effort to get our economy moving. Some of PEBO’s spending ideas included “investing” in government schools and modernizing various federal government buildings in Washington and elsewhere.





The “investing in education” bit gives you your first real clue of just what Obama is proposing here. He is proposing to use the occasion of an economic crisis to provide cover for increased government spending that he’s been promising since the day he announced his candidacy. I doubt that someone can explain clearly just how investing in education is going to quickly stimulate our economy, but that spending will be there because it was promised – promised long before our crisis became apparent.


Obama’s stimulus plan is very little more than a plan to enhance and solidify the power of the Imperial Federal Government over our economy at the expense of the private sector and free markets.


Is there a better idea out there? You bet there is, and it came from the 1st Congressional District of Texas. Congressmen Louie Gohmert notes that the federal government collects about $100 billion in income taxes every month, plus another $60 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes. If those of you who are government educated have a calculator handy, you’ll see that this adds up to about $160 billion a month. Now if you divide Obama’s proposed $800 billion stimulus plan by $160 billion, you’ll come up with five. This means that our government will collect $800 billion in income and payroll taxes from February through June.


So, Gohmert asks, instead of bureaucrats and politicians deciding how all of this money is going to be spent, why not let the people who actually worked for this cash make their own independent spending decisions for this money. How would you do that? Simple: declare a five-month tax holiday. From February through June everybody keeps their paycheck. No income tax withholding … no payroll taxes. What will the people do with this money? What, are you crazy? They’ll spend it, that’s what. Talk about stimulating the economy!


Let’s just wrap this up with a handy little chart. Politicians just love charts.


Stimulus plans' affect on national debt


Obama's Stimulus - The government prints $800 billion for government to spend, thus insuring that the money will be spent as politicians and government bureaucrats want it to be spent. Plan adds $800 billion in additional debt.


Six Month Tax Holiday - The government prints $800 billion to replace the lost tax revenue needed for ordinary government expenses while people are spending the money they earned to stimulate our economy. Plan adds $800 billion in additional debt.


Either way we add $800 billion to our deficit.


Who gets the power to chose economic winners and losers?


Obama's Stimulus - Government makes the choices of who wins and loses. Winners include teacher’s unions, government contractors, politicians and businesses favored by government and political operatives. This plan grows government.


Six Month Tax Holiday - The people who actually earned the money get to choose the economic winners and losers through their spending decisions. Winners include private sector businesses that provide quality products and services. This plan grows the private-sector economy.


Either way $800 billion gets poured into our economy!!!


Who comes out with more power?


Obama's Stimulus - Enhances the power of government and promotes the cause of a state -controlled economy.


Six Month Tax Holiday - Enhances the power of the individual taxpayer/consumer and promotes the cause of economic liberty and the free market.


Power to the people? Or to government?


Who gets the happy ending?


Obama's Stimulus - Thrills those who love government


Six Month Tax Holiday - Pleases those who love liberty



Is there a detriment to the Gohmert plan? You betcha! And the flaw is fatal. If you declare a full tax holiday people are actually going to figure out how much they earn. No more of this “take home pay” nonsense. You get your whole paycheck. Now just imagine what happens in July with the withholding starts again.


Revolt.