Please President Carter, Don't Say That

If you want to know why I'm not real happy with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney being the Republican candidate for President in 2012, here it is: former President Jimmy Carter say's he  would be comfortable with a President Romney.  I can only hope Mr. Romney gets elected and disappoints Mr. Carter very deeply.

And This is Why When I Hear President Obama Refer to President Reagan I Vomit

The Washington Post routinely does fact checking on statements by political figures on a scale of 1-4 Pinocchios. President Obama, in referring to his "Buffet Rule" which would push for a minimum tax for higher income earners regardless of the source, has referred to President Reagan, claiming he advocated for the same principles and he should be able to call it the "Reagan Rule". The Post rated that statement at two Pinocchios. I think they were being generous.

Let's be clear from the start, this is all about class warfare from the jump, a concept President Reagan would be revolted by. The Buffet Rule came about from the idea that somehow billionaire investor Warren Buffet paid less federal income tax than his secretary. She was even perched in the stands next to Michelle Obama during the State of the Union speech to further illustrate the President's false premise. What is correct is that Mr. Buffett pays a lower percentage rate on his income from investment. This is know as the Capital Gains Tax. Investment income is treated differently and taxed lower than regular income because we want to encourage investment in business. It should also be noted that the invested money was taxed when it was first earned as well.

When President Reagan was talking about tax fairness, he was talking about lowering rates for every American and removing exemptions to make a simpler tax system. President Reagan's version of the Buffett Rule would likely be to lower the secretary's tax rate to the same rate as capital gains. Almost everything Reagan stood for is the exact opposite of what President Obama advocates. Listening to him invoke Reagan is like listening to an atheist try to give a speech on the necessity for God in your life.

That Security Net is Starting to Look More Like a Security Napkin...Maye a Securty Tissue

News came out today that Social Security will run dry in 2033 and Medicare will run out of funding in 2024. Forget these programs not having enough for your grandchildren, if things are left as is, you won't be seeing anything from the money you've paid in to these systems either. This is such a short period of time that current beneficiaries could see the programs go broke. Luckily, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a man who can't manage his own taxes, said that any plan that changes the programs will not receive support. Hmm...so the programs are going to go broke unless there is some sort of change, which Secretary Geithner says Democrats won't support. So I guess this means the only way Democrats will support keeping Medicare and Social Security is taxing the living hell out of everyone they can lay their hands on, and don't think taxing the rich alone can somehow save these systems even if they took 100% of everything they made over $200,000.00. Welcome to Greece, boys and girls.

Unions Making Slavery Seem Like it Wasn't All That Bad

Unions are suing to revoke the Indiana "right to work" law. As I've explained before, so-called "right to work" states have laws on the books that allow people to work in unionized industries without being forced to join the union. Sane people ask why there needs to be a law to say a person cannot be forced by another person to join a union. The union says that they are enslaved by these laws. Confused? You should be. Unions are arguing in the lawsuit that, because they negotiate wages on behalf of the workers, the people who aren't forced into the union are getting those services for free, which means that the unions are slaves under the 13th Amendment. Let that soak in. The union is arguing that if they cannot force employees to join their organization and give them the fruits of their labor in dues, that the union is being enslaved.

If you're not laughing yet, you're like me, still stunned at the pure illogic of the argument. I mean, if someone argued that they were being enslaved because they were forced to work for a union, I could kind of see that argument, because they are having their labor taken in the form of dues without any choice in the matter. But that's still a stretch. The union argument is like the slave owner claiming that his slaves force him to own a plantation against his will. Unions had a purpose once, and it was good. Now they are just a quasi-governmental organization that thinks other people's money belongs to them simply so that they can perpetuate their own existence. After all, Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, makes eight times what the average worker does ($200,000-$300,000 a year since 2003 according to a union watchdog) all while making a living complaining about CEO salaries. I strongly suspect that salary is not his sole source of income either.

One to Watch

In these days of conservative cries for fiscal discipline and a return to Constitutional principles, many forego some of the international bodies that just don't work. My personal want is for the United States to withdraw funding from the United Nations and remove all troop support and ambassadors to that organization. Why we give money to a group that lets murderous dictators have a platform to address the world, ranting for hours on end (e.g. Khaddafi, Amhadinajad) is beyond me.

In that spirit, I would like to introduce the reader to Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R. WA). Ms. Rodgers has introduced legislation to revoke the $100 billion dollars pledged to the International Monetary Fund in 2009. This is not the knee jerk reaction of some Tea Party candidate as many liberals would assume. Ms. Rodgers is a 4th term Congresswoman from one of the most liberal states in the U.S. (though the Eastern portion, where her district is, is considerably less so than say, Seattle, or, as they like to think of themselves, New Leningrad). She is concerned with the lack of openness and transparency at the IMF. She also understands that continued borrowing and spending of governments is impeding economic recovery. This makes Ms. Rodgers someone to keep an eye on for the future, even though it is difficult to come to national prominence through the House of Representatives.

Damn the 1%

Ever since the Occupy Wall Street idiocy, the national lexicon has come to refer to the 99% (supposedly the poor and middle class) versus the 1% (the evil people who are wealthy). The Obama campaign is, of course, delighted by this kind of class warfare, it is what they eat and breathe. At a recent campaign appearance to pander to students by offering them money, President Obama noted that he "was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth" and that someone had to give him an education. Whether or not the comment was meant to be a dig at Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (the White House says it wasn't, but then, they say a lot of things that don't quite pass the smell test), it is clearly playing class warfare. As for someone having to give President Obama an education, that's probably the most honest I've heard him be, because he certainly didn't earn the education he received. From everything I've seen it appears he was a mediocre student at best, especially by comparison to people who get into Columbia and Harvard. But I digress...

I wonder if Democrats would be so quick to criticize the supposed 1% if we attach some names to them. John F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. All were born into wealth from a family of insane riches. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was from a similarly wealthy family. George Washington. The first president and arguably the greatest American in history (recently voted the staunchest foe in the history of the British Empire) may also have been the wealthiest man to ever serve as President. Surely President Obama and his campaign would acknowledge that these wealthy men were too wealthy to understand the plight of the common man and woman in the United States and, as such, unqualified to serve in public office. Right?

That Pesky Constitution

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) announced that she is in favor of a plan being advanced by Democrats that finally takes the progressive extreme left out of the closet regarding their hatred of the Constitution. Democrats are so offended that corporations can give political donations now (because it means Republicans might be able to raise money similar to the kind of money Democrats have always gotten from unions) that they want to alter the First Amendment. Feel free to read that again and get a rag to wipe up whatever you just spit out. Democrats want to essentially amend the First Amendment so that they can regulate (i.e. stop) corporate speech.

The thing that scares Democrats most is that they can't win a straight argument. They have to change the subject, drown the argument or stop it all together. Because, in the end, conservative Constitutionalism wins hands down every time it is presented on equal footing. They claim there is a problem with the anonymous nature of the donors. That doesn't take an amendment to the Constitution to fix, that takes a statute to require disclosure. One that would likely gain bipartisan support no less. As soon as the names are out, they will demonize the donors, digging up every piece of dirt they can find on them, just like they did when Joe the Plumber spoke out in 2008. This isn't about disclosure, it's about silence. Ms. Pelosi is just another petty bully, insecure in her beliefs, knowing that in a straight fight, she will lose. So much for that oath to protect and defend the Constitution.