When the 111th Congress convenes in January it will be an anxious time for conservatives. While pundits have said that Obama will govern from the center I have a very hard time believing that someone so far to the left could do that. I also find it hard to believe his "change" mantra considering the people he has surrounded himself with (Biden has been in the Senate for how long?), but I hope that I am wrong on both accounts.Either way, this is not going to be a Congress that is very receptive to conservative ideas. That being said, I think that it's important for those on the right to take a stand on some key issues. The following topics would be on my list of items worthy of a filibuster:
Cap and Trade: First let me define what cap and trade is for those who don't know. Here's what Wikipedia has to say: "A central authority(usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed.Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society" While we should strive to have a cleaner environment cap and trade will present a heavy burden to those companies who produce our energy and while a lot of politicians would like to think that the companies themselves would shoulder these costs anyone with common sense would tell you that these costs will be passed on to the consumer resulting in high energy costs which will make tough economic times even tougher for working families. I find it rather ironic that Mr. Obama would want to pass legislation such as this when he's supposed to be such a champion for the working class. To be fair though, this is something that McCain also wanted to pass. Either way you look at it,cap and trade would be a bad idea for America.
Employee Free Choice Act: This is one of those pieces of legislation that sounds great when you read the name, but really stinks when you look at the details. What this "free choice act" would do is to eliminate the secret ballot in order to organize unions. Instead union organizers would have to get a certain percentage of employees to sign union commitment cards to organize the employees. With the card check organizers would be able to visit the employee at home, at work, or when they are out with friends and pressure them into signing the card to organize. This is just another ploy by union organizers who are suffering from large declines in their membership. While I have tremendous respect for union members I have great disdain for their leadership. Here's a great quote from Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, "It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee 'free choice.... It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker is 'free to choose' is to ensure that there's a private ballot,so that no one knows how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker's democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it 'Employee Free Choice."
Freedom of Choice Act: To me, this is the biggie. This is one of the bills that Obama has declared that "The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." So, what will this bill do? The bill would abolish all restrictions and limitations on the right of women in the United States to have an abortion whether at the federal or state level. This would be a HUGE step back for all of us Pro-Lifers. I understand that overturning Roe vs. Wade may be a nearly impossible battle, but that makes it even more important that we have restrictions such as the partial birth abortion ban and the like.
Windfall Profits Tax: This is another one of those items that it is easy to convince the public that it's a good idea, but when you dig a little deeper you find out that it's an awful idea. The idea behind the windfall profits tax is to take a certain percentage (above and beyond the normal corporate income taxes) of "big oil" and redistribute it in the form of a rebate, or tax credit to tax payers making under a certain amount. Sounds great doesn't it? I always like getting checks in the mail! Problem is, this is another case where a seemingly good idea leads to another invisible tax. Who do you think is going to pay for the tax? The oil companies? Probably not. Just like any other company when their expenses rise they are going to pass those expenses right onto the consumer resulting in higher gas prices. Combine that with cap and trade and we could be looking at gas prices and $6+ a gallon. The other reason why I am strongly opposed to the windfall profits tax is because I think it is a very slippery slope. We would essentially be setting a limit to say when a company is making too much money. If we allow this to happen I can guarantee you that the government will keep moving that lower and lower. We need to stop penalizing success! I can understand if the companies were gouging their customers but oil companies have an 8% profit margin... That's not very much! I work for Verizon and our profit margin is a lot higher than that!
Fairness Doctrine: This is one of those issues that is nothing more than the lefts attempt at silencing their critics. For those who are unfamiliar with it the fairness doctrine would require broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. For example, if a radio station wanted to broadcast "The Glenn Beck Program" for three hours they would be required to broadcast a talk show from a liberal viewpoint for three hours. The big problem is, as we've learned from Air America, liberal talk shows have a very small audience and so it wouldn't be in the station manager's best interest to have an liberal talk show on their airwaves. There would be a lot of station owners out there who would scrap the talk radio format all together because they would not want the legal trouble. Other than the obvious, me being a conservative and thinking that talk radio is a good thing, there are many problems with this. First, I think that it is an obvious violation of the first amendment. If we decide that it's a good idea to restrict what is on our airwaves then we are no better than those in Communist China.Second, being a conservative I believe that the free market should dictate what programs make it to the airwaves and not the government.While I don't think that the fairness doctrine has any chance at passing, I do think that it's an issue that we need to keep an eye on though it would almost be worth seeing it pass to see what MSNBC would have to do!
If you agree with me on these topics I urge you to take action and contact your Congressional representatives. Remember, they work for YOU!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Encouragement for Conservatives
This is a speech by Reagan given over 33 years ago, but it seems very appropriate to revisit it after what happened yesterday... Remember... Conservativism didn't fail yesterday. Politicians to falsely portray themselves as conservatives did.
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.
And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today
than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”
For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.
And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today
than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”
For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
Friday, October 24, 2008
My Political Manifesto
Ok, so I have decided to take a stand and lay out what I believe as a conservative. I'm treating this as if I were running for office and laying out my platform. This is by no means a complete representation of what I'd do as president but it's a start. I'm sure that there are things I'm missing or topics that I have not fully developed and I'm sure you will all let me know where I've gone wrong. That's the beauty of debate. Also, I realize that there are a lot of things that I'm going to present that I know I probably could never accomplish as president, but just go with it.
My first act as supreme tsar of the United States would be to eliminate the political parties. In my opinion political parties such as the Republicans and Democrats are a bigger threat to our democracy than terrorism. When politicians get to Washington they seem to stop thinking for themselves and start letting their party do the thinking for them. Elections would all be run as non-partisan. Anyone who could pay the fee (or just meet some simple requirements) could run in the primaries with the top four candidates advancing to the general election.
Social Security - I think the only way to save social security is to privatize it. The government has shown that they are inept at handling our money so the 12.4% of my salary that I pay to social security should be deposited into my own retirement account so that I can see what is happening to it. One of the biggest arguments against this is that most people wouldn't know how to invest their money, or would put it into risky stocks. To combat this investments would be limited to well performing mutual funds and age based portfolios. I'm willing to bet that over time the average American can get a better return on their investment this way than the government can. Privatizing social security would create a large deficit, but my other cuts should make up the short term deficit and then once money is being funneled into these private accounts we won't have to worry about a SS shortfall in the future.
Gay Marriage - As president I would eliminate the governments recognition of marriage. In my opinion marriage is a religious thing, not a government thing. I would however allow anyone to form a legal partnership just like a corporation would. This partnership would allow couples to share employer benefits, receive possible tax breaks, and afford other benefits normally reserved for married couples.
Iraq War - While I don't necessarily think that it was the right time to go into Iraq, I do think it was necessary, and regardless of whether you think it was necessary or not, we are there, and we need to finish the job. Since things seem to be winding down in Iraq I would start to wind down forces and redeploy them to Afghanistan and other regions. Before leaving Iraq for good it is important that we make sure that it is secure, but in the mean time we need to play more of a background role and let the Iraqi government do it's job.
Illegal Immigration - First and foremost I would eliminate the birthright citizenship clause that is giving so many immigrants "permission" to stay in the US. Second, we need to move our military to our border. We need to not only stop the flow if illegal immigrants to our country, but we also need to curb the amount of violence that is going on in our border towns. Once that is done I would deport all of the illegal immigrants who are currently in our country. I know a lot of people will hear this and think that our economy would collapse from this, but that is the same argument that was used to support slavery. Once all the illegal immigrants had been deported I would expand the amount of legal immigrants that are let into our country. I would also streamline the process for getting into the US. If you have a job lined up and can prove that you can support yourself and pass a background check, you're in. If you are in the US and a temporary worker you will not be eligible for welfare or any government assistance.
Term Limits - I would impose a limits of 12 years for anyone serving in the house or senate. I think that it is imperative that we get new blood into the system. What we have right now is a lot of career politicians who have been doing the same thing for 20 or 30 years. Not to say that there aren’t some good ones who would be ousted by this, but I think that it needs to be done.
Abortion - In my tsar status I would overturn Roe vs. Wade and allow individual states to decided whether the slaughter of innocent children, I mean abortion, would be legal. Personally I would like to see abortion become illegal everywhere, but I would like to leave that up to voters to decide, not those who want to legislate from the bench.
Fiscal Responsibility - I think the financial irresponsibility of our government is the single biggest threat to the United States that there is. I don't think the average person realize how bad thing really are. Our national debt is currently over 10 TRILLION dollars! Factor in unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar obligations this figure reaches over 59 trillion dollars, or $516,348 per household. We MUST reduce spending in our government. If any of us spent like the government we'd be in jail right now. I would reduce the size of the federal government by at least half. I would eliminate all non-essential spending and revert the federal government's role to what was laid out in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.
Tax Cuts - I would leave currently tax rates in place until the national debt is paid off and we have an emergency reserve in place. With the cuts that I would make to the federal budget I would hope that we could make a big dent in the deficit. Once the debt has been paid off I would institute the fair tax at the minimum level needed to sustain the government and no more.
Welfare - Ideally I would like to eliminate welfare completely. I would like to think that we could take care of one another and not have to rely on the government to help people out, but I know that wont always be the case. Under the Brian Welfare Rules those who can not care for themselves would be taken care of. By "those who can't care for themselves" I mean, those who legitimately can't care for themselves. This would include people who can't work, not people who can, but chose not to. Under Brian Welfare those who have caught a bad break would break and had an appropriate need would qualify for three months of support. If after three months that person is not able to get back on their feet welfare can continue on a month to month basis if and only if the person can prove that they are trying, ie. Have applied for jobs, taken up a paper route, delivered pizzas, etc. Those who abuse the system would no longer be provided for like they are today.
Monetary Policy - Now, I'm no expert on monetary policy by any means, but the one thing that I can say about it is that we can not keep "making money." Again, if I had a printing press in my basement and just decided to whip out a sheet of $100 bills every time I ran out of money I would be put in jail. Why is it ok for our government to do this?
Energy - I would prefer to use an "all of the above" method for solving our energy problems. The US can not survive is we are dependent on crazy dictators for our energy needs. Not only do we need to "Drill here, Drill Now," but we also need to be building refineries, and nuclear power plants, and the like. We also need to be working on developing other technologies to reduce our dependance on oil. If Dr. Emmit Brown can develop a car that runs on trash, why can't we?
Environment - I'm all for having a clean environment, but I think the scare tactics that the global warming nuts use are going a bit too far. Though the famed global warming "scientist," Al Gore will tell you that the science is definitive, the truth is that it is not. There are a lot of real scientists out there who don't think that global warming is caused soley by man. Unfortunately you don't hear from those people very often because they are often associated with holocaust deniers by those in the Al Gore fan club. My solution for the environment is to end all of the governemnt regulation and let the free markets take care of it. If a company is not being a good environmental steward then don't buy their products. If you don't buy their products then they will get the message and change their ways. We don't need to spend billions and billions of dollars to support treaties that will do nothing when the free market can take care of it for free.
Gun Control - It is often said that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I agree. I think that we need to spend our resources trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and not out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Individual Liberties - I think that the people of the US should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT government interference. I don't think that the government has the right to interfere in the lives of law abiding citizens. I think that everyone should have the right to chose if their child gets vaccinated, if they carry health insurance, what they wear, where they smoke, what they eat, and what "god" (there is only one true GOD!) they worship.
Personal Responsibility - Personally responsibility is one of the biggest things missing in our country today. Going with the individual liberties theme, I also think that if you choose to smoke, eat unhealthy food, or not have insurance then I believe that it is your responsibility to get you out of any messes you create, not the governments. Our kids are being raised to believe that they are not responsible for their actions, that everyone wins, and that no one fails. The housing crisis is the biggest example of this. Unless fraud was involved then the government has no business trying to bail out homeowners or mortgage companies. If you chose to buy a house that you can't afford that is your fault. I believe that everyone has the RIGHT to own a home, but not everyone has the MEANS to own their own home, and why are we bailing out people who may lose their home? What's wrong with renting?
My first act as supreme tsar of the United States would be to eliminate the political parties. In my opinion political parties such as the Republicans and Democrats are a bigger threat to our democracy than terrorism. When politicians get to Washington they seem to stop thinking for themselves and start letting their party do the thinking for them. Elections would all be run as non-partisan. Anyone who could pay the fee (or just meet some simple requirements) could run in the primaries with the top four candidates advancing to the general election.
Social Security - I think the only way to save social security is to privatize it. The government has shown that they are inept at handling our money so the 12.4% of my salary that I pay to social security should be deposited into my own retirement account so that I can see what is happening to it. One of the biggest arguments against this is that most people wouldn't know how to invest their money, or would put it into risky stocks. To combat this investments would be limited to well performing mutual funds and age based portfolios. I'm willing to bet that over time the average American can get a better return on their investment this way than the government can. Privatizing social security would create a large deficit, but my other cuts should make up the short term deficit and then once money is being funneled into these private accounts we won't have to worry about a SS shortfall in the future.
Gay Marriage - As president I would eliminate the governments recognition of marriage. In my opinion marriage is a religious thing, not a government thing. I would however allow anyone to form a legal partnership just like a corporation would. This partnership would allow couples to share employer benefits, receive possible tax breaks, and afford other benefits normally reserved for married couples.
Iraq War - While I don't necessarily think that it was the right time to go into Iraq, I do think it was necessary, and regardless of whether you think it was necessary or not, we are there, and we need to finish the job. Since things seem to be winding down in Iraq I would start to wind down forces and redeploy them to Afghanistan and other regions. Before leaving Iraq for good it is important that we make sure that it is secure, but in the mean time we need to play more of a background role and let the Iraqi government do it's job.
Illegal Immigration - First and foremost I would eliminate the birthright citizenship clause that is giving so many immigrants "permission" to stay in the US. Second, we need to move our military to our border. We need to not only stop the flow if illegal immigrants to our country, but we also need to curb the amount of violence that is going on in our border towns. Once that is done I would deport all of the illegal immigrants who are currently in our country. I know a lot of people will hear this and think that our economy would collapse from this, but that is the same argument that was used to support slavery. Once all the illegal immigrants had been deported I would expand the amount of legal immigrants that are let into our country. I would also streamline the process for getting into the US. If you have a job lined up and can prove that you can support yourself and pass a background check, you're in. If you are in the US and a temporary worker you will not be eligible for welfare or any government assistance.
Term Limits - I would impose a limits of 12 years for anyone serving in the house or senate. I think that it is imperative that we get new blood into the system. What we have right now is a lot of career politicians who have been doing the same thing for 20 or 30 years. Not to say that there aren’t some good ones who would be ousted by this, but I think that it needs to be done.
Abortion - In my tsar status I would overturn Roe vs. Wade and allow individual states to decided whether the slaughter of innocent children, I mean abortion, would be legal. Personally I would like to see abortion become illegal everywhere, but I would like to leave that up to voters to decide, not those who want to legislate from the bench.
Fiscal Responsibility - I think the financial irresponsibility of our government is the single biggest threat to the United States that there is. I don't think the average person realize how bad thing really are. Our national debt is currently over 10 TRILLION dollars! Factor in unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar obligations this figure reaches over 59 trillion dollars, or $516,348 per household. We MUST reduce spending in our government. If any of us spent like the government we'd be in jail right now. I would reduce the size of the federal government by at least half. I would eliminate all non-essential spending and revert the federal government's role to what was laid out in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.
Tax Cuts - I would leave currently tax rates in place until the national debt is paid off and we have an emergency reserve in place. With the cuts that I would make to the federal budget I would hope that we could make a big dent in the deficit. Once the debt has been paid off I would institute the fair tax at the minimum level needed to sustain the government and no more.
Welfare - Ideally I would like to eliminate welfare completely. I would like to think that we could take care of one another and not have to rely on the government to help people out, but I know that wont always be the case. Under the Brian Welfare Rules those who can not care for themselves would be taken care of. By "those who can't care for themselves" I mean, those who legitimately can't care for themselves. This would include people who can't work, not people who can, but chose not to. Under Brian Welfare those who have caught a bad break would break and had an appropriate need would qualify for three months of support. If after three months that person is not able to get back on their feet welfare can continue on a month to month basis if and only if the person can prove that they are trying, ie. Have applied for jobs, taken up a paper route, delivered pizzas, etc. Those who abuse the system would no longer be provided for like they are today.
Monetary Policy - Now, I'm no expert on monetary policy by any means, but the one thing that I can say about it is that we can not keep "making money." Again, if I had a printing press in my basement and just decided to whip out a sheet of $100 bills every time I ran out of money I would be put in jail. Why is it ok for our government to do this?
Energy - I would prefer to use an "all of the above" method for solving our energy problems. The US can not survive is we are dependent on crazy dictators for our energy needs. Not only do we need to "Drill here, Drill Now," but we also need to be building refineries, and nuclear power plants, and the like. We also need to be working on developing other technologies to reduce our dependance on oil. If Dr. Emmit Brown can develop a car that runs on trash, why can't we?
Environment - I'm all for having a clean environment, but I think the scare tactics that the global warming nuts use are going a bit too far. Though the famed global warming "scientist," Al Gore will tell you that the science is definitive, the truth is that it is not. There are a lot of real scientists out there who don't think that global warming is caused soley by man. Unfortunately you don't hear from those people very often because they are often associated with holocaust deniers by those in the Al Gore fan club. My solution for the environment is to end all of the governemnt regulation and let the free markets take care of it. If a company is not being a good environmental steward then don't buy their products. If you don't buy their products then they will get the message and change their ways. We don't need to spend billions and billions of dollars to support treaties that will do nothing when the free market can take care of it for free.
Gun Control - It is often said that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I agree. I think that we need to spend our resources trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and not out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Individual Liberties - I think that the people of the US should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT government interference. I don't think that the government has the right to interfere in the lives of law abiding citizens. I think that everyone should have the right to chose if their child gets vaccinated, if they carry health insurance, what they wear, where they smoke, what they eat, and what "god" (there is only one true GOD!) they worship.
Personal Responsibility - Personally responsibility is one of the biggest things missing in our country today. Going with the individual liberties theme, I also think that if you choose to smoke, eat unhealthy food, or not have insurance then I believe that it is your responsibility to get you out of any messes you create, not the governments. Our kids are being raised to believe that they are not responsible for their actions, that everyone wins, and that no one fails. The housing crisis is the biggest example of this. Unless fraud was involved then the government has no business trying to bail out homeowners or mortgage companies. If you chose to buy a house that you can't afford that is your fault. I believe that everyone has the RIGHT to own a home, but not everyone has the MEANS to own their own home, and why are we bailing out people who may lose their home? What's wrong with renting?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What a Conservative Believes
While I can not take credit for the following post I think it does a great job and explaining what us evil conservatives really believe.
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, health care or Hummers.
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.
A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.
A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.
A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.
A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.
A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.
A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.
A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.
A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.
A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.
A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.
A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.
The preceding was written by Glenn Beck on CNN.com You can read the whole article here
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Intro
My name is Brian, and I am an evil conservative, or that's what certain people would have you believe. I mean, I'm in bed with the big oil, and I only care about the wealthy right? Well, not quite. I was born and raised in the Midwest, and have "Midwest" values. I believe in the individual. I believe that government is the problem, not the answer. My reason for blogging is not to preach to people, in fact, I don't care if anyone reads this or not. It is mostly just a tool for me to use to vent my frustration about what is happening to our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
