The Arizona law requiring that employers verify the immigration status of prospective employees has so far survived constitutional muster. This is not inconsistent. It is not wrong for the states to say, "If you are going to do business in my state, you will comply with Federal Law." The constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, but intrastate commerce regulation belongs mainly to the state itself.
Therefore, if you are keeping track, here is what is legal at the state level.
-Requirement that business validate the immigration status of potential employees.
This is what is not constitutional.
-Checking immigration status when investigating a crime.
The jury is still out on
-State-level guest worker program.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
My New Balanced Budget Amendment
Here is the text of a Balanced Budget Amendment that will work. I dare Orrin Hatch to submit this one.
Ia. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the President, Vice President, Members of the President's Cabinet, Chiefs of the Armed forces, Senators and Representatives; shall take effect, unless expenditures of the Federal Government are less than or equal to receipts. This law shall take effect five years after the passage of this article.
1b. Thirty years after the passage of this article, no law, varying the compensation for the services of the President, Vice President, Members of the President's Cabinet, Chiefs of the Armed forces, Senators and Representatives; shall take effect, unless the public debt of the United States Government is paid in full.
II. The Congress may not require that the states engage in additional activities without compensation equal to the additional costs.
III. Article 1b of this amendment may be waived during a time of war, natural or man-made disaster or unusual economic hardship, but all public debt of the United States acquired for these purposes must be retired thirty years after the debt has incurred.
IV. After public debt has been retired, Congress may set aside funds for use during time of war, natural or man-made disaster or unusual economic hardship. These funds must be exhausted before Congress may borrow money.
V. Congress may not borrow money from foreign governments. Any debt owed to a foreign power upon the passage of this amendment must be the first to be retired.
VI. Economic hardship, for the purposes of this amendment, is defined as the involuntary idleness of ten percent of the work-force.
What this means.
1. If the federal government is in deficit, Congress does not get a raise. The Congress has 30 years to retire the public debt and if it does not, then Congress does not get a raise.
2. Congress can not push unfunded mandates to the states.
3. This can be waived in time of war, disaster or economic hardship. But Congress has 30 years to pay back any money borrowed.
4. Any rainy-day funds must be exhausted before the government can borrow money.
5. Congress can't borrow money from foreign governments. Any funds owed to foreign governments must be paid first.
6. A U-6 unemployment rate of 10% is the definition of economic hardship for this amendment.
If you like this, share it with a friend. We want the whole country to know about this one.
Balancing the Federal Budget, One Thing That is Missed.
What do Mike Lee and Amway have in common?
The more I see of Mike Lee in the Senate, the more and more dissatisfied I become with his performance. It seems that all he has done since he went to Washington is agitate, and has not proposed or said one thing positive. I know we he did not go along in Washington, just to get along, but we need more than just a muck-raker, we need someone who will actually help the economy. This is not only my main criticism of Lee, but of the Tea Party in general.
First of all, there is the Laffer Curve. This is what is cited when people say that you can grow the economy simply by cutting taxes. I do not disagree with the principle, I only point out that this is a curve. Think of it as something similar to adding lanes to a highway to improve traffic flow. You have a highway that is one lane in each direction, and you add a second lane, you have increased the capacity of that highway by 100%. When you add the third lane, you increase the capacity of that highway by 50%. When you add a fourth lane you increase the capacity of the highway by 33%. And when you add a 5th lane, you increase the capacity of the highway by 25%. Soon, you get to the point where you are only paving new lanes and not doing much to help at all.
Back to tax cuts, in the early 1980's, the Reagan Tax cuts helped the economy greatly. The Bush tax cuts of the early 2000's helped, but they were arguably less effective. The next round of tax cuts would likely be less effective. Each dollar that is not taken out of the economy has less utility, just like each lane of added to the highway.
The same argument can be made with Keynesian Economics and borrowing money to help improve the economy. The first dollar borrowed will be the most effective. But soon, all you have is debt and you are doing very little to help the big picture.
It is time for the government to think out of the box, and help other people who have the capital to help the economy do more than they have at this time. And this brings me to Amway. I have read from Dave Ramsey that 90% of Amway distributors quit before they make a significant amount of money. Dave says that in order to succeed at multi-level marketing, one has to work very hard. Amway's secret is to pump people op psychologically, to help them feel good about what they are doing. Make people feel good about their chances for success, and eventually, some people can make money at it.
Mike Lee and the Tea Party are similar. They have made a lot of noise about getting the Federal Government to balance the budget in two years. This makes people feel good about voting for them. In reality, the Tea Party Caucus in Congress has done little to improve the economy and get people back to work. Eventually, the Democrats are going to turn this against them. Probably sooner rather than later.
Eventually, the Tea Party needs to come up with a plan to improve employment and help small business succeed other than giving the same old line, "get government out of the way." Most small businesses close within 5 years with or without government in or out of the way. Just like with Amway, feel good politics will only get us so far.
Coming soon, by Memorial Day, this blog will unveil a plan that will both cut the size of government and build small business. Stay tuned...
The more I see of Mike Lee in the Senate, the more and more dissatisfied I become with his performance. It seems that all he has done since he went to Washington is agitate, and has not proposed or said one thing positive. I know we he did not go along in Washington, just to get along, but we need more than just a muck-raker, we need someone who will actually help the economy. This is not only my main criticism of Lee, but of the Tea Party in general.
First of all, there is the Laffer Curve. This is what is cited when people say that you can grow the economy simply by cutting taxes. I do not disagree with the principle, I only point out that this is a curve. Think of it as something similar to adding lanes to a highway to improve traffic flow. You have a highway that is one lane in each direction, and you add a second lane, you have increased the capacity of that highway by 100%. When you add the third lane, you increase the capacity of that highway by 50%. When you add a fourth lane you increase the capacity of the highway by 33%. And when you add a 5th lane, you increase the capacity of the highway by 25%. Soon, you get to the point where you are only paving new lanes and not doing much to help at all.
Back to tax cuts, in the early 1980's, the Reagan Tax cuts helped the economy greatly. The Bush tax cuts of the early 2000's helped, but they were arguably less effective. The next round of tax cuts would likely be less effective. Each dollar that is not taken out of the economy has less utility, just like each lane of added to the highway.
The same argument can be made with Keynesian Economics and borrowing money to help improve the economy. The first dollar borrowed will be the most effective. But soon, all you have is debt and you are doing very little to help the big picture.
It is time for the government to think out of the box, and help other people who have the capital to help the economy do more than they have at this time. And this brings me to Amway. I have read from Dave Ramsey that 90% of Amway distributors quit before they make a significant amount of money. Dave says that in order to succeed at multi-level marketing, one has to work very hard. Amway's secret is to pump people op psychologically, to help them feel good about what they are doing. Make people feel good about their chances for success, and eventually, some people can make money at it.
Mike Lee and the Tea Party are similar. They have made a lot of noise about getting the Federal Government to balance the budget in two years. This makes people feel good about voting for them. In reality, the Tea Party Caucus in Congress has done little to improve the economy and get people back to work. Eventually, the Democrats are going to turn this against them. Probably sooner rather than later.
Eventually, the Tea Party needs to come up with a plan to improve employment and help small business succeed other than giving the same old line, "get government out of the way." Most small businesses close within 5 years with or without government in or out of the way. Just like with Amway, feel good politics will only get us so far.
Coming soon, by Memorial Day, this blog will unveil a plan that will both cut the size of government and build small business. Stay tuned...
Friday, May 20, 2011
Selling Utah is Actually a Good Idea.
A Florida Congressman, Don Ross, half jokingly said that we should "sell Utah" to pay down the national debt. That is not a half bad idea, if done right.
Why it will work?
Currently, Utah has 70% of it's land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. This is land owned by the Federal Government but not dedicated to the Military, Native Americans, National Parks, National Monuments or National Forests. That is currently, 29.9 million non-forest acres lie inside the borders of the Beehive State. At worst, that land is worth $5,000 per acre. Selling this land at that value would raise at least 149,500,000,000.00, or about 1% of the National Debt. Some of that land is on top of valuable oil and gas reverses and some of this land is prime recreation property and some of this land is valuable range land for the raising of cattle and sheep. Even land that is only used for cattle and sheep could be worth more that 5,000 per acre. Therefore, selling Utah will likely net a lot more than 149 Billion.
Why not other states?
Utah is not the only state with a lot of Federal Land. There is more land controlled by the BLM in Nevada, some 40 million non-forest acres. Although there is not as much water and the likelihood of valuable minerals is much less. But still, it could be worth some 200 Billion. Alaska had the most land, it has 87 Million acres that have not been granted to National Forest Service, which is worth at least a Trillion dollars and probably much more, but most of it is only accessible by air at this time. In the west, there is are 253 million acres of Federal land under BLM control. Some of this over very valuable mineral deposits. There is likely enough money tied up in Federal Land to pay the National Debt and then some. At the low-ball price of 5,000 per acre, it's only about 1.2 trillion, but likely worth a lot more. Again, an acre of wilderness in Alaska is worth a lot more than an acre of desert in Utah. I will put pen and paper to this at some other time and come up with a more accurate figure.
What else can the Federal Government Liquidate?
There are closed military bases, and other federal buildings all over the country that are no longer in use. Selling this surplus property to private buyers is bound to raise additional funds for the government.
Other Positives?
Let's take Garfield, County Utah as an example. The county has 5208 square miles. 97% of that land is owned by the Federal Government. The County can not levy taxes on this land, and has to fund it's law enforcement and schools by property tax on just 3% of it's land. Much of this land lies within the boundaries of National Monuments and National Parks, so the County has to rely on tourism dollars to operate. Roughly the eastern third of the county is BLM-managed federal land. This is land is occupied by the Henry Mountains and lies between Lake Powell and Capitol Reef National Park. It would be land that could be used for tourism and ranching. The middle third of Garfield County is occupied mostly by Capitol Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The western third of the county is mostly occupied by the Fishlake National Forest.
If this land were sold; that is if about 1/3 of the 5208 square miles or were sold and privatized, the county would be blessed with about 1,111,040 additional acres it could levy taxes upon. The property tax rate in Garfield County is about 7 dollars per 1,000 of property. At a price of 5,000 per acre, the county would be blessed with about additional 38 million dollars of new property tax revenue annually. (And this is a very conservative estimate and would the case if there were no improvements made to the property). Imagine how well they could pay teachers in Panguitch with an extra 38 million per year? Imagine how Garfield County could improve their police force with this much money? If this model were followed in the rest of Utah, there would be enough funds to bring Utah from being very last in per-pupil spending to at least the 2nd quartile.
There are some positive consequences nationwide. Credit rules will have to be relaxed to qualify people to buy some of this property. This can help the housing market recover all over the country.
Any negatives?
Yes, there will be unintended consequences. First, liquidation is something that can only happen once. The government will still have to figure out how to balance the federal budget and live within their means, but it will be an easier task when with much less allocated to pay interest. Second, there will be economic consequences. If the Feds pay off all of their debt at once, interest rates will plummet further. This could spur inflation.
And one more that can not under-stressed enough. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups will never sit idly by and will do everything in their power to stop something like this. They like the land idle and doing nothing. They will complain about the loss of habitat. There will be a petition to ask President Obama to use the Antiquities Act to block the measure. My response to them is ask them what they would give up to balance the budget. Selling Utah will not happen easily, but most of the consequences will be positive.
Why it will work?
Currently, Utah has 70% of it's land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. This is land owned by the Federal Government but not dedicated to the Military, Native Americans, National Parks, National Monuments or National Forests. That is currently, 29.9 million non-forest acres lie inside the borders of the Beehive State. At worst, that land is worth $5,000 per acre. Selling this land at that value would raise at least 149,500,000,000.00, or about 1% of the National Debt. Some of that land is on top of valuable oil and gas reverses and some of this land is prime recreation property and some of this land is valuable range land for the raising of cattle and sheep. Even land that is only used for cattle and sheep could be worth more that 5,000 per acre. Therefore, selling Utah will likely net a lot more than 149 Billion.
Why not other states?
Utah is not the only state with a lot of Federal Land. There is more land controlled by the BLM in Nevada, some 40 million non-forest acres. Although there is not as much water and the likelihood of valuable minerals is much less. But still, it could be worth some 200 Billion. Alaska had the most land, it has 87 Million acres that have not been granted to National Forest Service, which is worth at least a Trillion dollars and probably much more, but most of it is only accessible by air at this time. In the west, there is are 253 million acres of Federal land under BLM control. Some of this over very valuable mineral deposits. There is likely enough money tied up in Federal Land to pay the National Debt and then some. At the low-ball price of 5,000 per acre, it's only about 1.2 trillion, but likely worth a lot more. Again, an acre of wilderness in Alaska is worth a lot more than an acre of desert in Utah. I will put pen and paper to this at some other time and come up with a more accurate figure.
What else can the Federal Government Liquidate?
There are closed military bases, and other federal buildings all over the country that are no longer in use. Selling this surplus property to private buyers is bound to raise additional funds for the government.
Other Positives?
Let's take Garfield, County Utah as an example. The county has 5208 square miles. 97% of that land is owned by the Federal Government. The County can not levy taxes on this land, and has to fund it's law enforcement and schools by property tax on just 3% of it's land. Much of this land lies within the boundaries of National Monuments and National Parks, so the County has to rely on tourism dollars to operate. Roughly the eastern third of the county is BLM-managed federal land. This is land is occupied by the Henry Mountains and lies between Lake Powell and Capitol Reef National Park. It would be land that could be used for tourism and ranching. The middle third of Garfield County is occupied mostly by Capitol Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The western third of the county is mostly occupied by the Fishlake National Forest.
If this land were sold; that is if about 1/3 of the 5208 square miles or were sold and privatized, the county would be blessed with about 1,111,040 additional acres it could levy taxes upon. The property tax rate in Garfield County is about 7 dollars per 1,000 of property. At a price of 5,000 per acre, the county would be blessed with about additional 38 million dollars of new property tax revenue annually. (And this is a very conservative estimate and would the case if there were no improvements made to the property). Imagine how well they could pay teachers in Panguitch with an extra 38 million per year? Imagine how Garfield County could improve their police force with this much money? If this model were followed in the rest of Utah, there would be enough funds to bring Utah from being very last in per-pupil spending to at least the 2nd quartile.
There are some positive consequences nationwide. Credit rules will have to be relaxed to qualify people to buy some of this property. This can help the housing market recover all over the country.
Any negatives?
Yes, there will be unintended consequences. First, liquidation is something that can only happen once. The government will still have to figure out how to balance the federal budget and live within their means, but it will be an easier task when with much less allocated to pay interest. Second, there will be economic consequences. If the Feds pay off all of their debt at once, interest rates will plummet further. This could spur inflation.
And one more that can not under-stressed enough. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups will never sit idly by and will do everything in their power to stop something like this. They like the land idle and doing nothing. They will complain about the loss of habitat. There will be a petition to ask President Obama to use the Antiquities Act to block the measure. My response to them is ask them what they would give up to balance the budget. Selling Utah will not happen easily, but most of the consequences will be positive.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Entrepreneurship Is Not a Bad Thing at All
Entrepreneurship is the answer.
Jim Boehner is right. At the current levels of government revenue, it will take 20 years to balance the budget and another 30 years beyond that to pay off the National Debt. The answer is not another round of challenging incumbent Republicans. There is only so much that can be done with the revenues that the government is pulling in right now. Plus, it would be political suicide to completely get rid of entitlement programs all together. The Government has got to find a way to increase revenue. America, for lack of a better analogy, needs a second job.
Sure, what do you do when you run out of cash from month to month and can not make ends meet? Once you have cut the family budget as much as you can, you get another stream of income. You get a second job.
Trouble is, that during this economy, business start ups have been at record highs. When you can not get a job, then starting one seems logical. But these businesses are not taking off to the point where governments are reaping in massive tax revenues. The reason is simple. Someone who is down on their luck and broke is not going to have a lot of cash to begin a new business in the first place. Their business is going to be very slow at first, and take years to start...if it gets going at all. Starting a business that has a chance of success in a few months or years takes someone with a lot of his own capital to invest, both cash and time. Usually, three years of savings to last the family is a minimum.
As such, the government, particularly the current administration and congress should not look at entrepreneurship as a negative thing. It is something to be encouraged and respected. Eventually, it will lead to greater revenues which will help Congress balance the budget and pay the national debt.
Jim Boehner is right. At the current levels of government revenue, it will take 20 years to balance the budget and another 30 years beyond that to pay off the National Debt. The answer is not another round of challenging incumbent Republicans. There is only so much that can be done with the revenues that the government is pulling in right now. Plus, it would be political suicide to completely get rid of entitlement programs all together. The Government has got to find a way to increase revenue. America, for lack of a better analogy, needs a second job.
Sure, what do you do when you run out of cash from month to month and can not make ends meet? Once you have cut the family budget as much as you can, you get another stream of income. You get a second job.
Trouble is, that during this economy, business start ups have been at record highs. When you can not get a job, then starting one seems logical. But these businesses are not taking off to the point where governments are reaping in massive tax revenues. The reason is simple. Someone who is down on their luck and broke is not going to have a lot of cash to begin a new business in the first place. Their business is going to be very slow at first, and take years to start...if it gets going at all. Starting a business that has a chance of success in a few months or years takes someone with a lot of his own capital to invest, both cash and time. Usually, three years of savings to last the family is a minimum.
As such, the government, particularly the current administration and congress should not look at entrepreneurship as a negative thing. It is something to be encouraged and respected. Eventually, it will lead to greater revenues which will help Congress balance the budget and pay the national debt.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Rebuttal to Tribune Article
This post is a rebuttal to the article in Saturday's Salt Lake Tribune titled, "Some Latter-day Saint Conservatives Worship Political Dogma" (Olsen, Steve, 2011, "Some LDS Conservatives Worship Political Dogma", Salt Lake Tribune, Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51713295-82/political-government-idolatry-lds.html.csp)
Senate Candidate I know had an interesting take on the health care debate when she was running to unseat Senator Bob Bennett. Her father was a physician in California. As near as I can now recall, she quoted her father as stating that the Great Society was "the End of Quality healthcare as (was then known) was at an end". Why would a physician make such a statement. As a doctor, wouldn't it be nice to get payment for all of your services from the government and not have to worry about billing? Before Medicare and Medicaid were invented, you are probably wrong if you believe that physicians would terminate a patient relationship once a patient could no longer pay. According to my friend, the doctors would "work things out" and even "write charges off" if necessary. In Mr. Olsen's article, he mentioned that once a patient's means would run out, the patients would be out on the street.
Fact is, we do not know for certain how the medical industry would be today if there were no Medicare or Medicaid. But a simple understanding of economics will explain why government intervention is not sustainable. The simple truth is that our population is getting older. We are having fewer children and people are living longer. It also does not take a Rhodes Scholar to understand that older bodies have more medical problems. Therefore, there is a higher demand on medical services. In addition, the diet and sedentary nature of our American lifestyle has brought more pressure on the system, and will continue to do so. But what LDS Conservatives are most concerned about is the level of entitlement that permeates our society today. Most of us have grown up in a society where some third party insurance company paid most of our medical bills and health care providers have become wealthy. Those days are becoming a thing of the past.
Companies have found that they are unable to provide health insurance for their employees and provide the same level of service to their customers. Many companies have become overburdened from providing health coverage to retirees, and found that they have had to turn that coverage over to the government to avoid bankruptcy. No doubt, these hard times have effected a lot of people.
As an LDS conservative, I recognize the need for a public safety net, especially for older Americans. The only entitlement in the older age group that I am concerned about are the children of the elder generation who emotionally can't understand the difference between saving life and delaying death. It is when that line is crossed that health care can become expensive. The concern is also for those who spend their life abusing their bodies and expect a government and a society that will take care of them for a relatively young age, as early as 20+. These problems can bankrupt any government not matter how high the tax rate is.
Again, we do not know how the health care industry would look if there were no government intervention. But government dependence builds entitlement, which increases demand for services. While the government does little to increase supply. Simple economics tells us that higher demand and steady supply will drive prices higher. As the population ages, demand for medical services will increase. Many believe that without government intervention, that the free market will take care of most problems. As prices increase, more people will be drawn to the medical profession, increasing supplies of goods and services. Thus stabilizing prices. Another concern of conservatives, LDS or not, is that more government intervention drives people away from the profession, reducing supply and bringing more instability to price levels.
Furthermore, please notice that I said all of this without quoting scripture or any statement of church leadership, just like Mr Olsen did. But, I will skip fellow LDS like Glen Beck and Cleon Skousen and appeal directly to the scriptures that say, "Cease to be idle" (D&C 88:124).
I am not a casual observer on the sidelines in such a matter. Several years ago, I was laid off from a job in Texas and at the encouragement of my Bishop took a telemarketing job. This job paid well below the living wage, and I remained on welfare for a time. Eight years later, I am still with the same company, but I am not telemarketing. I am working in a position in my chosen profession and earning more money than I have before. It took me about a year and a half to prove my worth to my current employer. Newton's first law applies to the unemployed as well. While I agree that the unemployed are not lazy by nature, as I have been one of them, someones if one lets go of pride and takes what is available good things can happen. I, myself, am living proof. My grandfather also believed this way, and he was a life-long Democrat.
Senate Candidate I know had an interesting take on the health care debate when she was running to unseat Senator Bob Bennett. Her father was a physician in California. As near as I can now recall, she quoted her father as stating that the Great Society was "the End of Quality healthcare as (was then known) was at an end". Why would a physician make such a statement. As a doctor, wouldn't it be nice to get payment for all of your services from the government and not have to worry about billing? Before Medicare and Medicaid were invented, you are probably wrong if you believe that physicians would terminate a patient relationship once a patient could no longer pay. According to my friend, the doctors would "work things out" and even "write charges off" if necessary. In Mr. Olsen's article, he mentioned that once a patient's means would run out, the patients would be out on the street.
Fact is, we do not know for certain how the medical industry would be today if there were no Medicare or Medicaid. But a simple understanding of economics will explain why government intervention is not sustainable. The simple truth is that our population is getting older. We are having fewer children and people are living longer. It also does not take a Rhodes Scholar to understand that older bodies have more medical problems. Therefore, there is a higher demand on medical services. In addition, the diet and sedentary nature of our American lifestyle has brought more pressure on the system, and will continue to do so. But what LDS Conservatives are most concerned about is the level of entitlement that permeates our society today. Most of us have grown up in a society where some third party insurance company paid most of our medical bills and health care providers have become wealthy. Those days are becoming a thing of the past.
Companies have found that they are unable to provide health insurance for their employees and provide the same level of service to their customers. Many companies have become overburdened from providing health coverage to retirees, and found that they have had to turn that coverage over to the government to avoid bankruptcy. No doubt, these hard times have effected a lot of people.
As an LDS conservative, I recognize the need for a public safety net, especially for older Americans. The only entitlement in the older age group that I am concerned about are the children of the elder generation who emotionally can't understand the difference between saving life and delaying death. It is when that line is crossed that health care can become expensive. The concern is also for those who spend their life abusing their bodies and expect a government and a society that will take care of them for a relatively young age, as early as 20+. These problems can bankrupt any government not matter how high the tax rate is.
Again, we do not know how the health care industry would look if there were no government intervention. But government dependence builds entitlement, which increases demand for services. While the government does little to increase supply. Simple economics tells us that higher demand and steady supply will drive prices higher. As the population ages, demand for medical services will increase. Many believe that without government intervention, that the free market will take care of most problems. As prices increase, more people will be drawn to the medical profession, increasing supplies of goods and services. Thus stabilizing prices. Another concern of conservatives, LDS or not, is that more government intervention drives people away from the profession, reducing supply and bringing more instability to price levels.
Furthermore, please notice that I said all of this without quoting scripture or any statement of church leadership, just like Mr Olsen did. But, I will skip fellow LDS like Glen Beck and Cleon Skousen and appeal directly to the scriptures that say, "Cease to be idle" (D&C 88:124).
I am not a casual observer on the sidelines in such a matter. Several years ago, I was laid off from a job in Texas and at the encouragement of my Bishop took a telemarketing job. This job paid well below the living wage, and I remained on welfare for a time. Eight years later, I am still with the same company, but I am not telemarketing. I am working in a position in my chosen profession and earning more money than I have before. It took me about a year and a half to prove my worth to my current employer. Newton's first law applies to the unemployed as well. While I agree that the unemployed are not lazy by nature, as I have been one of them, someones if one lets go of pride and takes what is available good things can happen. I, myself, am living proof. My grandfather also believed this way, and he was a life-long Democrat.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Candidate the GOP Wants Does Not Exist.
There is an article appearing in newspapers all over the country today stating that 45 percent of registered Republicans surveyed are less that satisfied with the GOP field shaping up for 2012. Usually, I would shrug off this kind of survey as an effort by the in-love-with-Obama media to demean the potential GOP field. This case, I do not. I have spoken in person with many Republicans since the election of Obama, and I believe that the 45 percent may be understated a little bit.
If you ask me, and since you are reading my blog, you did; this is the negative effect that the Tea Party and talk radio have had on the Grand Old Party. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and others have always stated that they are critical of Republicans when warranted, and they are. Those of you who lean to the left don't believe it, but it is true. The trouble is that they have led the GOP base into believing that there is some demigod out there, a second coming of Ronald Reagan, who will lead this country back to Morning in America. Truth is, all potential Presidential Candidates have flaws and all have areas that the Obama campaign will be able to exploit. We will collectively have to decide which flaws we can live with.
We all know about Romneycare, the fact that Ron Paul was once (and perhaps still is) a Libertarian, Newt's former wives and the circumstances about his divorces and Huntsman's stance on environmental issues and Gay Rights. But even Ronald Reagan had flaws.
If Reagan were running in today's GOP, his conservative opponents would have been all over him for some of his flaws,and some of the things that were done when he served as Governor of California.
His stance on abortion was not clear in 1980 and there were those who believed that Reagan was actually pro-choice and not pro-life. As Governor of California, he signed the controversial "Theraputic Abortion Act," which was designed to reduce the number of "back room" abortions. This bill allowed for abortion where the life and well-being of the mother were compromised. A exception that many conservatives consider acceptable today, but not all. Because the line was not clearly drawn, this bill has to date been blamed for over 2 million abortions. Reagan later admitted that this was a mistake. (He used language that many suggest Romney use to distance himself from health reforms in Massachusetts.)
It is not well known today, but well known in the 1970s that Reagan hiked taxes in California to balance the state budget. My how conservatives today would jump all over that one. To his credit, he also froze government hiring in the state as well.
As Governor, Reagan signed the first of its kind no fault divorce law. Many defenders of marriage today consider this act, with Ronald Reagan's signature, as being the first step in weakening marriage today. The first step in leading to our fight against Gay Marriage today.
He was also the former President of the Screen Actor's Guild, a labor union. It is well known that Labor and the GOP are not exactly bunk-mates.
Running today, conservatives would have jumped all over these flaws. But Reagan's conservative legacy as President is clear and often cited by GOP wannabees as the politician they would most like to emulate. Even as Governor of California, Reagan led out as a conservative. One of his campaign slogans was, "send the welfare bums back to work." He advocated less government intervention to allow the economy to grow. As president, the Reagan Revolution expanded the military, contributed to the end of the Cold War and reduced reliance on government programs.
As you can see by examining Reagan's flaws, that no candidate is perfectly conservative. But that's the beauty of it all. We don't have to be perfect. In 1980, Reagan's GOP opponents were moderates and progressives. Today, nearly all of the GOP field have excellent conservative credentials. What needs to be the focus for the GOP is to find someone who has the charisma to win in 2012 and will begin his own or her own revolution. I suggest, as a Republican, we begin looking past some of the perspective candidates faults and look for someone who can win.
If you ask me, and since you are reading my blog, you did; this is the negative effect that the Tea Party and talk radio have had on the Grand Old Party. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and others have always stated that they are critical of Republicans when warranted, and they are. Those of you who lean to the left don't believe it, but it is true. The trouble is that they have led the GOP base into believing that there is some demigod out there, a second coming of Ronald Reagan, who will lead this country back to Morning in America. Truth is, all potential Presidential Candidates have flaws and all have areas that the Obama campaign will be able to exploit. We will collectively have to decide which flaws we can live with.
We all know about Romneycare, the fact that Ron Paul was once (and perhaps still is) a Libertarian, Newt's former wives and the circumstances about his divorces and Huntsman's stance on environmental issues and Gay Rights. But even Ronald Reagan had flaws.
If Reagan were running in today's GOP, his conservative opponents would have been all over him for some of his flaws,and some of the things that were done when he served as Governor of California.
His stance on abortion was not clear in 1980 and there were those who believed that Reagan was actually pro-choice and not pro-life. As Governor of California, he signed the controversial "Theraputic Abortion Act," which was designed to reduce the number of "back room" abortions. This bill allowed for abortion where the life and well-being of the mother were compromised. A exception that many conservatives consider acceptable today, but not all. Because the line was not clearly drawn, this bill has to date been blamed for over 2 million abortions. Reagan later admitted that this was a mistake. (He used language that many suggest Romney use to distance himself from health reforms in Massachusetts.)
It is not well known today, but well known in the 1970s that Reagan hiked taxes in California to balance the state budget. My how conservatives today would jump all over that one. To his credit, he also froze government hiring in the state as well.
As Governor, Reagan signed the first of its kind no fault divorce law. Many defenders of marriage today consider this act, with Ronald Reagan's signature, as being the first step in weakening marriage today. The first step in leading to our fight against Gay Marriage today.
He was also the former President of the Screen Actor's Guild, a labor union. It is well known that Labor and the GOP are not exactly bunk-mates.
Running today, conservatives would have jumped all over these flaws. But Reagan's conservative legacy as President is clear and often cited by GOP wannabees as the politician they would most like to emulate. Even as Governor of California, Reagan led out as a conservative. One of his campaign slogans was, "send the welfare bums back to work." He advocated less government intervention to allow the economy to grow. As president, the Reagan Revolution expanded the military, contributed to the end of the Cold War and reduced reliance on government programs.
As you can see by examining Reagan's flaws, that no candidate is perfectly conservative. But that's the beauty of it all. We don't have to be perfect. In 1980, Reagan's GOP opponents were moderates and progressives. Today, nearly all of the GOP field have excellent conservative credentials. What needs to be the focus for the GOP is to find someone who has the charisma to win in 2012 and will begin his own or her own revolution. I suggest, as a Republican, we begin looking past some of the perspective candidates faults and look for someone who can win.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Totally Random Thought
Let's say your sister is the future Queen of England. You are on a supposedly private party with some so-called friends and one takes a photo of you without your top...you can not expect those photos not to end up on the Internet.
Sorry Pippa...welcome to the Royal Family.
Sorry Pippa...welcome to the Royal Family.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Why Newt Is Running
According to a Newt Spokesperson, former House Speaker Newt Gengrich will announce his candidacy for US President this coming Wednesday. There are three facts to understand about this. 1. Newt can not beat Obama. 2. Newt can not even win the nomination. 3. Newt knows this. Why is Newt running?
In review of history, the only man ever to win the Presidency after a break in his service in the House of Representatives was Abraham Lincoln. I did not personally know Abe Lincoln, but I can tell you that Newt is no Abraham Lincoln. Nor will the black swan that sunk the Democrats in election of 1860 re-appear. We all pray that those circumstances never repeat themselves. Although some would believe that Newt has the ego to believe he can make history, there is no doubt in my mind that not even Newt Gengrich has a big enough ego to believe that he can pull it off. There has to be enough of a realist inside of Newt and his supporters to know what he is up against. Newt has been out of politics for 15 years, he has been a Fox News Contributor, and he has become nothing more than the Pat Buchanan of the 2010's.
The reason why Newt is running for the Presidency is because he believes that Romney and Huckabee, the leaders for the GOP nomination are both too moderate and he wants to push the candidacy to a more conservative nominee. But neither is a clear enough of a front runner to know for certain who the nominee will be at this point. As there is no clear leader right now, he feels that he can influence the voters and move the nomination to someone more conservative. Newt believes he has enough influence in the GOP to pull this off.
There are, of course, some flaws in this thinking. This plan will fail if Newt has no chance of winning the nomination after the South Carolina Primary. But if there is still no clear leader after South Carolina, and Newt is still in the race, then his plan will work. The question then becomes, who does the king maker favor? I can only tell you who he does not like. He does not like some of the more moderate choices out there, namely Romney, Huntsman and Pawlenty. The more conservative choices such as Palin and Daniels are Newt favorites. If one of them is in striking distance, and Newt has some delegates in his pocket, expect him to drop out and make an endorsement.
In review of history, the only man ever to win the Presidency after a break in his service in the House of Representatives was Abraham Lincoln. I did not personally know Abe Lincoln, but I can tell you that Newt is no Abraham Lincoln. Nor will the black swan that sunk the Democrats in election of 1860 re-appear. We all pray that those circumstances never repeat themselves. Although some would believe that Newt has the ego to believe he can make history, there is no doubt in my mind that not even Newt Gengrich has a big enough ego to believe that he can pull it off. There has to be enough of a realist inside of Newt and his supporters to know what he is up against. Newt has been out of politics for 15 years, he has been a Fox News Contributor, and he has become nothing more than the Pat Buchanan of the 2010's.
The reason why Newt is running for the Presidency is because he believes that Romney and Huckabee, the leaders for the GOP nomination are both too moderate and he wants to push the candidacy to a more conservative nominee. But neither is a clear enough of a front runner to know for certain who the nominee will be at this point. As there is no clear leader right now, he feels that he can influence the voters and move the nomination to someone more conservative. Newt believes he has enough influence in the GOP to pull this off.
There are, of course, some flaws in this thinking. This plan will fail if Newt has no chance of winning the nomination after the South Carolina Primary. But if there is still no clear leader after South Carolina, and Newt is still in the race, then his plan will work. The question then becomes, who does the king maker favor? I can only tell you who he does not like. He does not like some of the more moderate choices out there, namely Romney, Huntsman and Pawlenty. The more conservative choices such as Palin and Daniels are Newt favorites. If one of them is in striking distance, and Newt has some delegates in his pocket, expect him to drop out and make an endorsement.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Group Think in the Utah State Legislature
The Utah State Legislature decided to override two of Government Hebert's vetos. As a results, I find myself in agreement with KSL's Ethan Millard. Anytime I find myself in agreement with Millard, I get scared.
The first veto that was overridden was the highway bill. This bill dedicates a percentage of sales tax revenue to highway construction and maintenance every single year. I do not wish to under emphasize the importance of highways and their effect on commerce. Not only does good highway maintenance make commerce simpler, it also directly and indirectly keep people employed.
Keep in mind that in Utah, we have fuel taxes, and 100% of fuel taxes are, as they should be, dedicated to the construction and maintenance of highways. The problem is that as fuel costs have sky rocketed in the past five years, people are driving less and purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. As a result, less fuel tax money goes into state coffers. The legislature feels obligated to ensure another source of revenue for highways.
However, budgeting should be a flexible. Part of the problem that other states have in balancing their state budgets is laws like the one Governor Hebert vetoed. Some years, the legislature needs to spend less on highways, and some years there needs to be more spend on highways. This bill shows some legislative short sidedness. Sure, the bill can be worked around with a simple majority vote of the legislature, but that would become a debate unto itself. It would take time out of the 45-day legislative session. Then time needed for the overall legislative session is lost. The legislature has tied their own hands in forcing this legislation on themselves.
I am certain that in the very near future, education advocates in this state will introduce a petition to repeal this bill at the ballot box. If or when such a petition is presented, I have already endorsed it.
The legislature has also ended the four-day work week in Utah. This is a pity. True, the main reason for implementing a 4-day work week was to spend less on utilities. Those cost savings never materialized for the state, but there were other benefits which are now gone. Let me enumerate those.
-State employees get another day to spend with their families. When the kids are still in school, this is a day to focus on yard work and other dirty details that take away from family time on weekends. Therefore, the quality of family life that state employees enjoyed is now gone.
-State employees will have to go back to commuting to work 5 days per week. For those who drive their own vehicles, this means a 25% cost increase in the fuel used to get to work. In a day when so many perks are being lost, this was a big morale boost to some state employees.
-Citizens will have to return to the days when we had to take time off to take advantage of state services, such as renewing a drivers license or getting a car registered.
-Utah was considered a leader in this regard. The four-day work week showed some initiative, some creative leadership and some out of the box thinking to many outside the state.
I can understand the logic of both bills, but I can not understand the logic of the veto override. Especially with the surprise override of the 4-day work-week bill. Some of the reason why the costs savings did not materialize is because utility costs have, in fact, been increasing during this time. The legislature was looking at dollars spend and not utility units.
The state may suffer for returning to a 5-day work week. The state may suffer because of the highway bill. Especially representatives trying to avoid Tea Party challenges. The legislature looks as if it has been strong armed by Labor Unions and other special interest groups. Fiscal conservatives should look at this action with a weary eye. It will affect how I vote in the next election.
The first veto that was overridden was the highway bill. This bill dedicates a percentage of sales tax revenue to highway construction and maintenance every single year. I do not wish to under emphasize the importance of highways and their effect on commerce. Not only does good highway maintenance make commerce simpler, it also directly and indirectly keep people employed.
Keep in mind that in Utah, we have fuel taxes, and 100% of fuel taxes are, as they should be, dedicated to the construction and maintenance of highways. The problem is that as fuel costs have sky rocketed in the past five years, people are driving less and purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. As a result, less fuel tax money goes into state coffers. The legislature feels obligated to ensure another source of revenue for highways.
However, budgeting should be a flexible. Part of the problem that other states have in balancing their state budgets is laws like the one Governor Hebert vetoed. Some years, the legislature needs to spend less on highways, and some years there needs to be more spend on highways. This bill shows some legislative short sidedness. Sure, the bill can be worked around with a simple majority vote of the legislature, but that would become a debate unto itself. It would take time out of the 45-day legislative session. Then time needed for the overall legislative session is lost. The legislature has tied their own hands in forcing this legislation on themselves.
I am certain that in the very near future, education advocates in this state will introduce a petition to repeal this bill at the ballot box. If or when such a petition is presented, I have already endorsed it.
The legislature has also ended the four-day work week in Utah. This is a pity. True, the main reason for implementing a 4-day work week was to spend less on utilities. Those cost savings never materialized for the state, but there were other benefits which are now gone. Let me enumerate those.
-State employees get another day to spend with their families. When the kids are still in school, this is a day to focus on yard work and other dirty details that take away from family time on weekends. Therefore, the quality of family life that state employees enjoyed is now gone.
-State employees will have to go back to commuting to work 5 days per week. For those who drive their own vehicles, this means a 25% cost increase in the fuel used to get to work. In a day when so many perks are being lost, this was a big morale boost to some state employees.
-Citizens will have to return to the days when we had to take time off to take advantage of state services, such as renewing a drivers license or getting a car registered.
-Utah was considered a leader in this regard. The four-day work week showed some initiative, some creative leadership and some out of the box thinking to many outside the state.
I can understand the logic of both bills, but I can not understand the logic of the veto override. Especially with the surprise override of the 4-day work-week bill. Some of the reason why the costs savings did not materialize is because utility costs have, in fact, been increasing during this time. The legislature was looking at dollars spend and not utility units.
The state may suffer for returning to a 5-day work week. The state may suffer because of the highway bill. Especially representatives trying to avoid Tea Party challenges. The legislature looks as if it has been strong armed by Labor Unions and other special interest groups. Fiscal conservatives should look at this action with a weary eye. It will affect how I vote in the next election.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
GOP Presidential Wannabee's Power Rankings...May, 2010
Part 1, who is winning the horse race.
1. Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor.
2. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor.
3. Donald Trump, businessman and TV personality.
4. Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor.
5. Michelle Bachmann, Congressperson from Wisconsin
6. Newt Gengritch, former Speaker of the House.
7. Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota
8. Jon Huntsman, Jr, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China
9. Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana
10. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
Part 2, same 10 ranked according to who can beat Obama
1. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor.
2. Tim Pawlenty, former Minnesota Governor.
3. Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor
4. Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana
5. Jon Huntsman, Jr, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China
6. Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor
7. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
8. Michelle Bachmann, Congressperson from Wisconsin
9. Newt Gengritch, former US House Speaker
10. Donald Trump, businessman and TV Personality
1. Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor.
2. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor.
3. Donald Trump, businessman and TV personality.
4. Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor.
5. Michelle Bachmann, Congressperson from Wisconsin
6. Newt Gengritch, former Speaker of the House.
7. Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota
8. Jon Huntsman, Jr, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China
9. Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana
10. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
Part 2, same 10 ranked according to who can beat Obama
1. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor.
2. Tim Pawlenty, former Minnesota Governor.
3. Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor
4. Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana
5. Jon Huntsman, Jr, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China
6. Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor
7. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
8. Michelle Bachmann, Congressperson from Wisconsin
9. Newt Gengritch, former US House Speaker
10. Donald Trump, businessman and TV Personality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
