Arizona is the first in the nation to pass a law making it a state offense as well as as a federal offense to be in the US illegally. Because of the high concentration of illegals in Arizona and the federal government failing to do its duty to defend the border, the taxes of legal Arizonans are skyrocketing. With the added costs of education; hospital treatment; bi-lingual government forms; crime; violence; social services; and drugs, Arizona is struggling to keep a balanced budget.
Illegal aliens drain money from government while contributing nothing back but they also depress wages in the private sector. Illegals who work construction or as farm labor for considerably less, undercut legitimate business due to circumvention of minimum wage laws and taxation. This leads to wages spiraling downward and unemployment spiraling upward. Do we really have to continue on this ruinous path even while unemployment is already hovering near 10%?
So does this mean that SWAT teams will surround the houses of illegals and drag them into the street using Gestapo-like tactics? Hardly. If someone is stopped because they have committed another crime, they can be questioned as to their immigration status. Even though being in the US illegally is a crime, an illegal will have to commit a second crime to even be asked the question. If someone is stopped for a second crime and cannot speak English or has no form of ID, they will probably be asked to prove their citizenship.
Libertarians oppose the Arizona law but in doing so they are forgetting their core values. Not only do illegals compete with government granted advantage, that being a blind eye being turned to their income in terms of taxation, but Ayn Rand reminds us that no country can exist with open borders and a welfare state. Certainly today more than ever we cannot exist with open borders, a welfare state and a President who is determined to make all those here illegally into citizens with full rights to the cornucopia of social programs.
Despite consistent negative coverage, 64% of Arizonans support the new law. 51% of Americans overall support the bill with only 39% opposed according to Gallup.
Under our Federalist system, states can impose laws as long as they do not contradict the Constitution. The dissenters can then vote with their feet (read: move) if they cannot stand the law. Many illegals say that they will leave the state due to the restrictive law. The only question now is will the bordering states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico pass similar laws if the waves of illegal immigrants come to their door?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Girl Don't Go Away Mad, Girl Just Go Away
I posted a column when Sarah Palin resigned from the governorship in Alaska. Although it was favorably commented on by a plethora of conservative bloggers, I could not understand her reasoning, much less her speech. I said as much in that column. Now Sarah Palin is a commentator for Fox News and will be hosting a Real American Stories piece for them. Although I was skeptical about Palin, I was ready to give her another chance. She blew it before the show aired.
The show lifted interviews previously from the Fox archives and made it seem as though Palin was the interviewer. She was not. LL Cool J protested so vehemently that his piece was dropped from the show. Toby Keith, who got the same treatment, also complained. Palin has the reputation, rightly or wrongly, of not being able to hold her own in an interview. I was willing to give her a chance but the special seems the indicate that this characterization was correct. Either as interviewer or interviewee, Palin is a dud.
There is a group of people who feel the need to prop Palin up because of her life story and frankly because of her gender. Why bother when we have great conservative women in the party like Michelle Bachmann? Why even fall into the trap that we have to have a front-and-center conservative woman? Many women are conservative and those who are, are in it for the ideals the party stands for not because they are falling for some Democratesque identity politics. Smaller government, getting to keep more of what you earn and a strong foreign policy does not affect women less than it affects men. To assume so is inherently sexist.
While talk radio props up Sarah Palin, she fails them again and again. Can she operate as a commentator? The market will decide. Can she successfully run for President? I severely doubt it. If we must have a woman in the running to show we are inclusive, let's shift the focus to Michelle Bachmann who is better able to articulate conservatism to a wide audience.
Sarah Palin is a great woman who truly reformed Alaska in many ways against all odds and did so with a smile. She deserves our gratitude for what she has done up to this point but she was plucked before her time and has become an object of derision. She is incapable of being a viable candidate on a national level and for substantive reasons.
Should she announce that she will not seek the Presidency and allow the primary to occur between the major candidates? In her words, "You betcha."
The show lifted interviews previously from the Fox archives and made it seem as though Palin was the interviewer. She was not. LL Cool J protested so vehemently that his piece was dropped from the show. Toby Keith, who got the same treatment, also complained. Palin has the reputation, rightly or wrongly, of not being able to hold her own in an interview. I was willing to give her a chance but the special seems the indicate that this characterization was correct. Either as interviewer or interviewee, Palin is a dud.
There is a group of people who feel the need to prop Palin up because of her life story and frankly because of her gender. Why bother when we have great conservative women in the party like Michelle Bachmann? Why even fall into the trap that we have to have a front-and-center conservative woman? Many women are conservative and those who are, are in it for the ideals the party stands for not because they are falling for some Democratesque identity politics. Smaller government, getting to keep more of what you earn and a strong foreign policy does not affect women less than it affects men. To assume so is inherently sexist.
While talk radio props up Sarah Palin, she fails them again and again. Can she operate as a commentator? The market will decide. Can she successfully run for President? I severely doubt it. If we must have a woman in the running to show we are inclusive, let's shift the focus to Michelle Bachmann who is better able to articulate conservatism to a wide audience.
Sarah Palin is a great woman who truly reformed Alaska in many ways against all odds and did so with a smile. She deserves our gratitude for what she has done up to this point but she was plucked before her time and has become an object of derision. She is incapable of being a viable candidate on a national level and for substantive reasons.
Should she announce that she will not seek the Presidency and allow the primary to occur between the major candidates? In her words, "You betcha."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Book Review: Sean Hannity's Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda
Conservatives continue to ask themselves "What next?" even as Obama is moving on from his victory over the American people in pushing his healthcare reform bill. Liberals answer to "What next?" is cap-and-trade, amnesty, financial regulation overhauls, and imposing a VAT tax. Fortunately, Sean Hannity's book could not have come at a better time. In his new book, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda, Hannity lays out just what we need to do to stop the march towards socialism.
Hannity starts by describing Obama's past and present associates. From Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, Hannity shows that Obama feels most comfortable with radical leftists and indeed surrounds himself with them. Guilt by association is a weak charge but the list of Obama's radical friends are too numerous to be anything but a conscious effort to surround himself with like-minded socialists. People like Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Harry Knox, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Kathleen Sebelius, Harold Koh, and Dawn Johnson only mirror Obama's own ideaology. From animals being protected by the Consitution to forced sterilization there is no cockamamie liberal idea too ridiculous for these Obama appointees.
Hannity then turns his attention to when conservatives have done right by America. The Contract with America, welfare reform and middle class tax cuts that occurred under New Gingrich's House show that Republicans really are worthy to be America's true conservative party. Hannity understands the frustrations that people have with the party, most recently in the example of DeeDee Scozafava, but urges conservatives to work within the party to revitalize it. As Regan asked "Is it a third party we need or a revitalized second party?" While the Tea Party is a great grassroots organization, Tea Party candidates would split the vote and squander the chance that Obama's unpopular policies have created. As a libertarian I agree with this characterization. Although the Republican party stands for some things I disagree with, I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we get another McCainesque candidate in '12, I will vote Libertarian but if we can get a good conservative candidate, I will vote against Obama and for the Republican.
Lastly, Hannity lays out a plan for victory. It can be concisely stated as the same as Dick Morris's plan which I laid out in the last post. Defund the healthcare reform bill and repeal it before America gets addicted to yet another impossibly unwieldy entitlement program. Obama was not a sleeper or a Manchurian candidate as some claim, he told us exactly what he was going to do and he is following through on his promises. If amnesty passes, Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democrat rule could become a reality. It is crucial that we stop his progress in '10 and remove him in '12.
Hannity's book clearly lays out Obama's radicalism, points to when Republicans truly kept their promises with the Contract, and shows us what we must do to once again have a conservative Republican party. With the current climate in America, it is not merely a pipe dream to imagine that this can happen again. As long as this center-right country stays engaged we can halt the leftward drift of America and indeed the Republican party. It is always darkest before the dawn and we could truly have Morning in America once again.
Despite my previous reviews, I've never really had a rating system before. A 5-star system seems appropriate (even though if I take the time to write about it, it will probably be rated 5 stars!). I give Sean Hannity's book 5 stars. This book along with Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny should be required reading for any conservative revolutionary looking to put the current crisis in perspective and how to find a way out.
Hannity starts by describing Obama's past and present associates. From Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, Hannity shows that Obama feels most comfortable with radical leftists and indeed surrounds himself with them. Guilt by association is a weak charge but the list of Obama's radical friends are too numerous to be anything but a conscious effort to surround himself with like-minded socialists. People like Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Harry Knox, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Kathleen Sebelius, Harold Koh, and Dawn Johnson only mirror Obama's own ideaology. From animals being protected by the Consitution to forced sterilization there is no cockamamie liberal idea too ridiculous for these Obama appointees.
Hannity then turns his attention to when conservatives have done right by America. The Contract with America, welfare reform and middle class tax cuts that occurred under New Gingrich's House show that Republicans really are worthy to be America's true conservative party. Hannity understands the frustrations that people have with the party, most recently in the example of DeeDee Scozafava, but urges conservatives to work within the party to revitalize it. As Regan asked "Is it a third party we need or a revitalized second party?" While the Tea Party is a great grassroots organization, Tea Party candidates would split the vote and squander the chance that Obama's unpopular policies have created. As a libertarian I agree with this characterization. Although the Republican party stands for some things I disagree with, I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we get another McCainesque candidate in '12, I will vote Libertarian but if we can get a good conservative candidate, I will vote against Obama and for the Republican.
Lastly, Hannity lays out a plan for victory. It can be concisely stated as the same as Dick Morris's plan which I laid out in the last post. Defund the healthcare reform bill and repeal it before America gets addicted to yet another impossibly unwieldy entitlement program. Obama was not a sleeper or a Manchurian candidate as some claim, he told us exactly what he was going to do and he is following through on his promises. If amnesty passes, Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democrat rule could become a reality. It is crucial that we stop his progress in '10 and remove him in '12.
Hannity's book clearly lays out Obama's radicalism, points to when Republicans truly kept their promises with the Contract, and shows us what we must do to once again have a conservative Republican party. With the current climate in America, it is not merely a pipe dream to imagine that this can happen again. As long as this center-right country stays engaged we can halt the leftward drift of America and indeed the Republican party. It is always darkest before the dawn and we could truly have Morning in America once again.
Despite my previous reviews, I've never really had a rating system before. A 5-star system seems appropriate (even though if I take the time to write about it, it will probably be rated 5 stars!). I give Sean Hannity's book 5 stars. This book along with Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny should be required reading for any conservative revolutionary looking to put the current crisis in perspective and how to find a way out.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
What Next?
The talking heads are asking themselves on talk radio the same thing blue collar conservatives are asking each in private: What next?
What next is not an easy question even if it is a simple one. Dick Morris has a step-by-step plan for repealing the legislation:
1. Restore the Medicare cuts mandated in this bill. Block the reduction of physicians’ fees by 21 percent scheduled to take effect this fall. Override the cuts in Medicare that require annual approval by Congress. Challenge the Democrats over each and every cut. Try to peel away enough votes to stop the cuts from driving doctors and hospitals to refuse to take Medicare patients.
2. Defeat the Democrats in the 2010 election! Start with the traitors who voted no in November and then switched to a shameful yes when it counted in March. Then go on to win the open seats in the House and Senate. And then fight to replace as many Democrats as possible. Remember: Any Democrat who voted no would have voted yes if they had needed his or her vote. The only way to repeal ObamaCare is to vote Republican.
3. Defund. Once we get the majority in both chambers, defund appropriations for the ObamaCare program. The bill passed by the Congress and signed by the president is simply an authorization measure. Funds must be appropriated for it each year by Congress. Through zero-funding these changes, we can cripple them before they take full effect.
4. Repeal. And, once we defeat Barack Obama, we need to proceed to repeal this disastrous plan before it can ruin our healthcare system. Then we must replace it with a Republican alternative that relies on the marketplace, tax incentives and individual responsibility to provide healthcare to all Americans.
I often look to Dick Morris for his insight if not his conclusions. This time is no different. We thought we strangled healthcare during the townhall debates. We did not. We thought the rising unpopularity of the bill demonstrated in every single poll taken on the issue would kill it. It did not. We thought the election of Scott Brown had killed the bill. He did not. We look for the courts to strike down the bill because of the individual mandate provision which is grossly unconstitutional. It may not.
On the plus side, there is actually precedent for repealing an entitlement program. The most obvious example is Clinton's welfare reform but even that has been quietly reversed by Obama in the stimulus bill. The real precedent we must look to is the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (MCCA) of 1988 . Although liberals (including the author of the cited article) still insist that if it had been better explained it would have survived, we have heard this all before. Obama blamed himself for not explaining the current bill for its unpopularity but even as the public gained more and more knowledge about the bill, its popularity declined. The American people understand perfectly that large entitlement programs rob from future generations and are completely unsustainable.
Even worse, some Republicans are praising parts of the bill saying they only need to "reform the reform." Talk about pre-existing conditions dominates whenever a Republican wants to try to set himself apart and act like he's an independent and rational observer. No one wants an insurance company to deny coverage to someone who already has a policy and needs care, this is something Republicans agree on. However, when Democrats talk about pre-existing conditions they are not talking about this. What they refer to is known as "community rating" in which the healthy 19 year old is charged the same rate as as a 60 year old cancer patient when neither has carried insurance prior and buys into the system. The purpose of insurance is to be a risk pool, you pay when you are young and healthy and use it very little and you file claims when you are older and use it often. If someone can choose not not to buy insurance until they are 60 with cancer, it is no longer a risk pool! If the companies are forced to charge the 60 year old terminal patient who just purchased insurance after his diagnosis the same price as the 19 year old, rates will skyrocket because the risk management has been legislated out of the system.
The only reason a 60-year old would need to buy insurance is because insurance is tied to employment and most people are lucky enough not to work all their lives. If insurance was tied to the individual and not the job the number of people with lapsing policies would decrease substantially. If policies could be carried from state-to-state this would also cause a huge decrease in the number of lapsing policies. Unfortunately the health insurance industry is legislated that any major or even minor change in your life causes you to lose your insurance. Simply by issuing individuals the same tax credits that companies have and repealing the law that keeps companies from competing across state lines would solve the pre-existing condition problem. Don't wade through the muck of this bill in hopes of finding a gem, repeal the whole damn thing!
Which brings us back to the question of can we repeal it. The MCCA proves it is possible but is it likely? Assuming (and this is by no means a certainty) we regain the House and Senate and the Presidency by 2012, will the Republicans repeal the bill? Bush tried to privatize Social Security in 2006 and failed. There has never been any real attempt to reform Medicare or Medicaid despite their crippling costs currently at $44 trillion in the hole. Even Reagan pledged to abolish the Department of Energy which was put in place by his feckless one-term predecessor and failed. Government grows and almost never shrinks. I said when Obama was elected, sometimes you need a Carter to get to a Reagan. But in reality, we don't need a Reagan we need a Coolidge. Between 1923 and 1928, Calvin Coolidge's first year and last full year in office, he accomplished a feat that seems unbelievable at the end of the century: Federal spending didn't increase. If no President has even had the nerve to reform these generation-old entitlements, are we to believe the next one will abolish the largest one ever?
What next is not an easy question even if it is a simple one. Dick Morris has a step-by-step plan for repealing the legislation:
1. Restore the Medicare cuts mandated in this bill. Block the reduction of physicians’ fees by 21 percent scheduled to take effect this fall. Override the cuts in Medicare that require annual approval by Congress. Challenge the Democrats over each and every cut. Try to peel away enough votes to stop the cuts from driving doctors and hospitals to refuse to take Medicare patients.
2. Defeat the Democrats in the 2010 election! Start with the traitors who voted no in November and then switched to a shameful yes when it counted in March. Then go on to win the open seats in the House and Senate. And then fight to replace as many Democrats as possible. Remember: Any Democrat who voted no would have voted yes if they had needed his or her vote. The only way to repeal ObamaCare is to vote Republican.
3. Defund. Once we get the majority in both chambers, defund appropriations for the ObamaCare program. The bill passed by the Congress and signed by the president is simply an authorization measure. Funds must be appropriated for it each year by Congress. Through zero-funding these changes, we can cripple them before they take full effect.
4. Repeal. And, once we defeat Barack Obama, we need to proceed to repeal this disastrous plan before it can ruin our healthcare system. Then we must replace it with a Republican alternative that relies on the marketplace, tax incentives and individual responsibility to provide healthcare to all Americans.
I often look to Dick Morris for his insight if not his conclusions. This time is no different. We thought we strangled healthcare during the townhall debates. We did not. We thought the rising unpopularity of the bill demonstrated in every single poll taken on the issue would kill it. It did not. We thought the election of Scott Brown had killed the bill. He did not. We look for the courts to strike down the bill because of the individual mandate provision which is grossly unconstitutional. It may not.
On the plus side, there is actually precedent for repealing an entitlement program. The most obvious example is Clinton's welfare reform but even that has been quietly reversed by Obama in the stimulus bill. The real precedent we must look to is the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (MCCA) of 1988 . Although liberals (including the author of the cited article) still insist that if it had been better explained it would have survived, we have heard this all before. Obama blamed himself for not explaining the current bill for its unpopularity but even as the public gained more and more knowledge about the bill, its popularity declined. The American people understand perfectly that large entitlement programs rob from future generations and are completely unsustainable.
Even worse, some Republicans are praising parts of the bill saying they only need to "reform the reform." Talk about pre-existing conditions dominates whenever a Republican wants to try to set himself apart and act like he's an independent and rational observer. No one wants an insurance company to deny coverage to someone who already has a policy and needs care, this is something Republicans agree on. However, when Democrats talk about pre-existing conditions they are not talking about this. What they refer to is known as "community rating" in which the healthy 19 year old is charged the same rate as as a 60 year old cancer patient when neither has carried insurance prior and buys into the system. The purpose of insurance is to be a risk pool, you pay when you are young and healthy and use it very little and you file claims when you are older and use it often. If someone can choose not not to buy insurance until they are 60 with cancer, it is no longer a risk pool! If the companies are forced to charge the 60 year old terminal patient who just purchased insurance after his diagnosis the same price as the 19 year old, rates will skyrocket because the risk management has been legislated out of the system.
The only reason a 60-year old would need to buy insurance is because insurance is tied to employment and most people are lucky enough not to work all their lives. If insurance was tied to the individual and not the job the number of people with lapsing policies would decrease substantially. If policies could be carried from state-to-state this would also cause a huge decrease in the number of lapsing policies. Unfortunately the health insurance industry is legislated that any major or even minor change in your life causes you to lose your insurance. Simply by issuing individuals the same tax credits that companies have and repealing the law that keeps companies from competing across state lines would solve the pre-existing condition problem. Don't wade through the muck of this bill in hopes of finding a gem, repeal the whole damn thing!
Which brings us back to the question of can we repeal it. The MCCA proves it is possible but is it likely? Assuming (and this is by no means a certainty) we regain the House and Senate and the Presidency by 2012, will the Republicans repeal the bill? Bush tried to privatize Social Security in 2006 and failed. There has never been any real attempt to reform Medicare or Medicaid despite their crippling costs currently at $44 trillion in the hole. Even Reagan pledged to abolish the Department of Energy which was put in place by his feckless one-term predecessor and failed. Government grows and almost never shrinks. I said when Obama was elected, sometimes you need a Carter to get to a Reagan. But in reality, we don't need a Reagan we need a Coolidge. Between 1923 and 1928, Calvin Coolidge's first year and last full year in office, he accomplished a feat that seems unbelievable at the end of the century: Federal spending didn't increase. If no President has even had the nerve to reform these generation-old entitlements, are we to believe the next one will abolish the largest one ever?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obama: 1, America: 0
Alot of people are confused about what has transpired over the last few days so I'll take a paragraph to explain the process before my usual commentary.
Last year, the Senate passed their version of the health care bill with 60 votes prior to the election of Scott Brown. On Sunday, the House passed the measure without using the Slaughter solution (also known as deem-and-pass). Today, the bill will be signed into law by the President. The House also passed a second "fix-it" bill that must be voted on by the Senate and will pass by reconciliation although possibly with many changes. The "fix-it" bill will supposedly allay the concerns of pro-life Democrats like Stupak although Senators like Boxer have implied they will remove that language from the Senate version. The main bill will become law today and will be challenged by the state attorney generals of at least 7 states regarding the mandate that everyone must buy coverage.
Unfortunately because the bill was not passed using the Slaughter solution, we cannot appeal to the courts for it to be rescinded. We can still challenge parts of it and attempt to take it down piece by piece. The individual mandate may be found to be unconstitutional and that could be our first victory.
Already people are demanding that the bill be repealed, this is no simple task. Obama would veto any attempt to repeal this legislation so even looking at it optimistically we are stuck with the new taxes until 2012. If Obama wins reelection and remains until 2016, people will start receiving the benefits and then repealing it will be absolutely impossible. A simple majoritarian vote in both houses of Congress (if the Dems ignore the filibuster to pass the "fix-it", then we can do the same to repeal it) and a Republican President are the necessary ingredients kill this bill in its cradle. And we need both by 2012.
By passing this bill, Obama has gone against the 60%+ of Americans who wanted to see the process either forgotten about or restarted with true bipartisan support. Although Obama has repeatedly said that this will lower your premiums by as much as $2500 per family per year:
Too bad Obama didn't tell his Majority Whip, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) who says that anyone who tells you premiums is going down is lying to you:
But wait, Obama claims is also a deficit reduction measure as well! Not only are we going to insure every man, woman and child and reduce premiums but it is also the largest deficit reduction in over a decade:
None of the American people could possibly believe the litany of lies that the Democrats have issued regarding this bill. The truth is this is massive new entitlement for the federal government and an unfunded mandate to the state governments and all this in the midst of a recession. As a rule, when the public sector expands the private sector contracts. This is not something that can be argued or something that is not always true. The public sector lives of the private sector by siphoning money out of it like a parasite! While everyone recognizes the need for some government, this latest bill will increase the bloodletting to a point that we as Americans have never seen before. Before this bill passed, government spending was 45% of GDP. Now add the 1/6 of our economy that is health care spending (+~16%) and we are over 60%. 50% is the threshold for socialist nations. Sweden's government spending only equals 52.5% of GDP.
Welcome to one of the most socialist nations on the planet, The United States of America.
Last year, the Senate passed their version of the health care bill with 60 votes prior to the election of Scott Brown. On Sunday, the House passed the measure without using the Slaughter solution (also known as deem-and-pass). Today, the bill will be signed into law by the President. The House also passed a second "fix-it" bill that must be voted on by the Senate and will pass by reconciliation although possibly with many changes. The "fix-it" bill will supposedly allay the concerns of pro-life Democrats like Stupak although Senators like Boxer have implied they will remove that language from the Senate version. The main bill will become law today and will be challenged by the state attorney generals of at least 7 states regarding the mandate that everyone must buy coverage.
Unfortunately because the bill was not passed using the Slaughter solution, we cannot appeal to the courts for it to be rescinded. We can still challenge parts of it and attempt to take it down piece by piece. The individual mandate may be found to be unconstitutional and that could be our first victory.
Already people are demanding that the bill be repealed, this is no simple task. Obama would veto any attempt to repeal this legislation so even looking at it optimistically we are stuck with the new taxes until 2012. If Obama wins reelection and remains until 2016, people will start receiving the benefits and then repealing it will be absolutely impossible. A simple majoritarian vote in both houses of Congress (if the Dems ignore the filibuster to pass the "fix-it", then we can do the same to repeal it) and a Republican President are the necessary ingredients kill this bill in its cradle. And we need both by 2012.
By passing this bill, Obama has gone against the 60%+ of Americans who wanted to see the process either forgotten about or restarted with true bipartisan support. Although Obama has repeatedly said that this will lower your premiums by as much as $2500 per family per year:
Too bad Obama didn't tell his Majority Whip, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) who says that anyone who tells you premiums is going down is lying to you:
But wait, Obama claims is also a deficit reduction measure as well! Not only are we going to insure every man, woman and child and reduce premiums but it is also the largest deficit reduction in over a decade:
None of the American people could possibly believe the litany of lies that the Democrats have issued regarding this bill. The truth is this is massive new entitlement for the federal government and an unfunded mandate to the state governments and all this in the midst of a recession. As a rule, when the public sector expands the private sector contracts. This is not something that can be argued or something that is not always true. The public sector lives of the private sector by siphoning money out of it like a parasite! While everyone recognizes the need for some government, this latest bill will increase the bloodletting to a point that we as Americans have never seen before. Before this bill passed, government spending was 45% of GDP. Now add the 1/6 of our economy that is health care spending (+~16%) and we are over 60%. 50% is the threshold for socialist nations. Sweden's government spending only equals 52.5% of GDP.
Welcome to one of the most socialist nations on the planet, The United States of America.
Friday, March 5, 2010
I support J.D. Hayworth
John McCain deserves our respect. He is a war hero who put his life on the line for our country. He served with admiration and distinction during Vietnam including while in a POW camp. He even turned down an early release that was offered for propaganda purposes since his father was commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam. He chose to stay with his soldiers and continue to endure torture. Hearing the horror stories about the POW camps, it is hard to imagine making that choice. He continues to bear the physical scars and disabilities that he incurred during his plane's crash landing and his subsequent internment. This is not me merely "checking the box" before I explain why I do not support him, John McCain is an American hero.
That being said, he is not a conservative. Sure he has some conservative credentials like opposing earmarks but McCain cannot be counted on to stand with conservatives and fight the battle that we are now engaged in with the Democrats. He opposed Bush's tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich", ran a lackluster Presidential campaign, and opposes enhanced interrogation techniques. He sponsored an immigration reform which would have thrown open our borders and another which unconstitutionally "reformed" financing of campaigns. He also co-sponsored a cap-and-trade bill with Sen. Lieberman. He advocates universal healthcare and affirmative action, he opposes the sale of cheap handguns (also known as midnight specials) which puts self defense out of reach for many poorer families who need it the most. McCain felt so strongly about the stimulus that he suspended his Presidential campaign to rally support for it. He also supported the auto bailouts. McCain supports stem cell research. Need I go on?
J.D. Hayworth first came to my attention with his book on illegal immigration titled "Whatever It Takes." I found the book filled with common sense and refutations of the typical liberal talking points. From blistering statistics showing that most crop-pickers are American citizens to anecdotal evidence about citizens standing outside recently raided Tyson chicken plants to apply for jobs, Hayworth demolishes the argument for illegal immigration. Far from being a nativist, Hayworth lays out the illegal immigration debate in dollars and cents. And, surprise, they are costing you money. In the form of higher taxes, higher medical bills, and reduced services you are paying for illegals.
Hayworth was decried in the Presidential primaries as a one-issue candidate but he stands firm in all aspects of conservatism. He wrote the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, he supports the War on Terror, he opposed TARP and cap-and-trade. He is unequivocally pro-life and has received a rating of 98 from the American Conservative Union.
In the days when we have learned that there is no such thing as a "moderate Democrat," isn't it time that we purged ourselves of the moderate Republicans? As in 1980, when the tide was turning against the Democrats don't we now, more than ever, need to remember Reagan's words, "No pale pastels but bold colored differences!"
Please support J.D Hayworth in his primary fight against John McCain.
Your favorite blogger,
Conservative Ken
That being said, he is not a conservative. Sure he has some conservative credentials like opposing earmarks but McCain cannot be counted on to stand with conservatives and fight the battle that we are now engaged in with the Democrats. He opposed Bush's tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich", ran a lackluster Presidential campaign, and opposes enhanced interrogation techniques. He sponsored an immigration reform which would have thrown open our borders and another which unconstitutionally "reformed" financing of campaigns. He also co-sponsored a cap-and-trade bill with Sen. Lieberman. He advocates universal healthcare and affirmative action, he opposes the sale of cheap handguns (also known as midnight specials) which puts self defense out of reach for many poorer families who need it the most. McCain felt so strongly about the stimulus that he suspended his Presidential campaign to rally support for it. He also supported the auto bailouts. McCain supports stem cell research. Need I go on?
J.D. Hayworth first came to my attention with his book on illegal immigration titled "Whatever It Takes." I found the book filled with common sense and refutations of the typical liberal talking points. From blistering statistics showing that most crop-pickers are American citizens to anecdotal evidence about citizens standing outside recently raided Tyson chicken plants to apply for jobs, Hayworth demolishes the argument for illegal immigration. Far from being a nativist, Hayworth lays out the illegal immigration debate in dollars and cents. And, surprise, they are costing you money. In the form of higher taxes, higher medical bills, and reduced services you are paying for illegals.
Hayworth was decried in the Presidential primaries as a one-issue candidate but he stands firm in all aspects of conservatism. He wrote the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, he supports the War on Terror, he opposed TARP and cap-and-trade. He is unequivocally pro-life and has received a rating of 98 from the American Conservative Union.
In the days when we have learned that there is no such thing as a "moderate Democrat," isn't it time that we purged ourselves of the moderate Republicans? As in 1980, when the tide was turning against the Democrats don't we now, more than ever, need to remember Reagan's words, "No pale pastels but bold colored differences!"
Please support J.D Hayworth in his primary fight against John McCain.
Your favorite blogger,
Conservative Ken
Rahming Speed!
Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, raised some eyebrows a year ago when he said "Never let a serious crisis go to waste, it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." Rahm and I might differ on alot of points but I'd say he nailed it on the head with that one. FDR used the Great Depression to pass huge entitlement spending never before thought of before he entered office and long after the crisis is over we are still living with the repercussions. Emanuel knows that cracking the door to nationalized healthcare is enough to set us on the path to a single-payer system in which the government is ultimately responsible for the healthcare of 300 million Americans.
What Emanuel did not count on was a national backlash in the form of disruptive townhall meetings, populist anger and ultimately the TEA party. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts gave the Republicans their 41st vote in the Senate and effectively killed healthcare by demolishing the Democrat's filibuster-proof supermajority. So that's the end of that, right? Radical healthcare reform was defeated from the same seat that it's most ardent proponent, Ted Kennedy, used to occupy. A spectacular example of the anger and mistrust at the federal government's overreach was smacked down in the bluest of blue states. But like a bad zombie movie, healthcare reform is back from dead and it doesn't look any prettier now.
Reconciliation, a Senate rule that allows budgetary measures to be passed with a simple majority, has now been put on the table. Referred to as the nuclear option by some, reconciliation is a little used rule that has only been utilized 13 times since 1990. It has never been used on anything this large or monumental which would change a fundamental part of American life. The use of reconciliation is almost always opposed by the minority party as it decreases their power and circumvents the filibuster. The Democrats went on record against the filibuster when Bush was in office:
But as politics go, now that they are the majority party, they once again love reconciliation. But this isn't merely a political football to be passed back and forth, it is a crucial check on government. Bush was using the option to enact a tax cut and give people back more of their paycheck, Obama is using it to nationalize 1/6 of the nation's economy over the popular will of the people. Although reconciliation may make sense in some cases, the Democrats are not only "nuking" the Republicans but the over 50% of the American people who oppose the bill. They are not merely overriding a filibuster but the American people. They are even "nuking" their own colleagues in the House who are threatening to kill the bill because of its support for publicly funded abortion. Nancy Pelosi waves off the objections of Republicans by stating that a bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes even while invoking the nuclear option to disenfranchise Republicans.
The American people are showing uncanny tenacity to have followed the process for this long and still be engaged. Ever since last summer the Democrats have been pushing this bill and they are being more ardently opposed every day. Congress's approval rating is now 10% and still they press on. Clearly the American people are not allowing Rahm and his cronies the opportunity to do things they couldn't before. If Congress passes this bill, they will ultimately pay the price. Opening the door on reconciliation before an election in which virtually all pollsters say the Democrats will lose seats might be a mistake they will eventually regret. If the healthcare bill is passed by reconciliation it can be repealed by reconciliation and since the benefits do not occur until 2013 but the taxes start right away, it may even be politically expedient for the Republicans to do so.
What Emanuel did not count on was a national backlash in the form of disruptive townhall meetings, populist anger and ultimately the TEA party. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts gave the Republicans their 41st vote in the Senate and effectively killed healthcare by demolishing the Democrat's filibuster-proof supermajority. So that's the end of that, right? Radical healthcare reform was defeated from the same seat that it's most ardent proponent, Ted Kennedy, used to occupy. A spectacular example of the anger and mistrust at the federal government's overreach was smacked down in the bluest of blue states. But like a bad zombie movie, healthcare reform is back from dead and it doesn't look any prettier now.
Reconciliation, a Senate rule that allows budgetary measures to be passed with a simple majority, has now been put on the table. Referred to as the nuclear option by some, reconciliation is a little used rule that has only been utilized 13 times since 1990. It has never been used on anything this large or monumental which would change a fundamental part of American life. The use of reconciliation is almost always opposed by the minority party as it decreases their power and circumvents the filibuster. The Democrats went on record against the filibuster when Bush was in office:
But as politics go, now that they are the majority party, they once again love reconciliation. But this isn't merely a political football to be passed back and forth, it is a crucial check on government. Bush was using the option to enact a tax cut and give people back more of their paycheck, Obama is using it to nationalize 1/6 of the nation's economy over the popular will of the people. Although reconciliation may make sense in some cases, the Democrats are not only "nuking" the Republicans but the over 50% of the American people who oppose the bill. They are not merely overriding a filibuster but the American people. They are even "nuking" their own colleagues in the House who are threatening to kill the bill because of its support for publicly funded abortion. Nancy Pelosi waves off the objections of Republicans by stating that a bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes even while invoking the nuclear option to disenfranchise Republicans.
The American people are showing uncanny tenacity to have followed the process for this long and still be engaged. Ever since last summer the Democrats have been pushing this bill and they are being more ardently opposed every day. Congress's approval rating is now 10% and still they press on. Clearly the American people are not allowing Rahm and his cronies the opportunity to do things they couldn't before. If Congress passes this bill, they will ultimately pay the price. Opening the door on reconciliation before an election in which virtually all pollsters say the Democrats will lose seats might be a mistake they will eventually regret. If the healthcare bill is passed by reconciliation it can be repealed by reconciliation and since the benefits do not occur until 2013 but the taxes start right away, it may even be politically expedient for the Republicans to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
