Getting Political: On Trump

I am very wary of Donald Trump. His history doesn't align with what he's saying now. Granted, anyone can have an epiphany and change their direction. It happened to St. Paul on the road to Tarsus. But I don't think that's what is happening here. As Obama consistently pushes the Democrat party to the Left, I think that Trump's goal is to push the Republican party to the right to the point where voting for them is untenable. Trust me, as a Texan I see first hand the collateral damage to the economy and individuals from unchecked ILLEGAL immigration. That the Republicans have not created a message that differentiates between legal and illegal immigration demonstrates how we have ceded the message to the media and the Left. 

Having said that, I am angry as anyone out there. The attacks on free speech, religion and security are personal affronts. I believe the White House, in particular Jarrett, have very skillfully selected cases that they believe can inflame national angst and push for action. Only in two cases has this not worked. In McKinney, where a large group of out of control teenagers invaded a private HOA pool, "someone" sent out of work protester Deray McKesson to stir things up. By and large it didn't work and the push back after finding out that the gathering was a recruiting tool to get underage women to dance for much older men at unsupervised gatherings rather cooled the heat. Likewise the absolute wisdom of people in South Carolina after the tragic shooting of nine people defused what I am sure the White House hoped would be more days of rioting and demands. 

So what do we need to talk about? All these actions hide a shell game of distracting voters from the real issues. What needs to happen is we need to talk money. We are running out of money and the president can't cut programs or tax more without alienating his base and impacting whoever gets the DNC nod. So they are seeking more REVENUE STREAMS. Trump probably recognizes this. This is why there's talk about taxing churches, taxing Ebay (go look at th most recent TOS there if you don't believe it) and taxing other previously "safe" income outlets. This needs to be what our candidate discusses, circumventing the firebombs from the left. While Trump may be saying what some want to hear, we need someone who can implement those actions. He's not the guy.

Who's In Your Corner (Not!)

You can turn on any newscast and the top story is the economy. The corollary story is the price of oil. Supposedly, people think the President has the power to "do something about the price of oil." Not so. The Executive branch can only act upon laws and bills passed by Congress. So what has Congress done lately to lower the price of oil? If the price is based on supply and demand, you would think that the reduced demand, as cited in the news, would help. Not so-the supplies were lowered by foreign producers to keep prices high. So the next step would be to increase domestic production. But the folks who are running the committees in Congress are now headed and filled with appointees from Pelosi and company. So what did the Congressional subcommittee do for you yesterday? They denied any drilling for oil of of Florida. But that's just for AMERICAN companies. It seems that Cuba, China AND India are all drilling from the same oil field just outside the 50 mile line from shore. The rest of the world is profiting from OUR resources, and then selling them back to us for a profit. The Democrat controlled Congress has done NOTHING to stem this, they insist on following a tangential line of quasi-environmentalism that is leading us to deny our own citizens a safe lifestyle. The case could easily be made that if, as many liberals contend, the war in Iraq was for oil, then what policy forced us to be so concerned about keeping safe our energy supply? In short, would we be in Iraq if environmentalists had prevented using our own coal and oil? And remember, while people can point fingers all they want at the White House, it's Congress that calls the shots. Oh, and by the way, the vote broke down by parties-Democrats opposing drilling, Republicans supporting it. Who's in your corner, really?

China Drills While Congress Piddles.
Subcommittee Rejects Drilling

And It's Two, Three, Four, What Are You Paying For?

I came across this little website that outlines what the average family pays in taxes. Then it takes it to the next level and itemizes. I think you will be surprised at what we are shelling out on a per person basis for services that are wasteful or even unaccounted for. The site is linked in the title. Below is a tidbit.
"TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Jim Kessler, VP for Policy and Tess Stovall, Policy Advisor
RE: What You Paid For

If you wrote a check for more than $13,000, you would want to know exactly
what you were buying. As is it turns out, $13,000 is about what the typical working
age taxpayer paid to the federal government in 2007. That’s a lot of money for
anyone, but for a taxpayer earning about $64,000, that’s one-fifth of all earnings.
Yet nearly all taxpayers have absolutely no idea how that money is spent. At best,
they may see a pie chart which shows in broad categories how the federal
government spends its $2.9 trillion budget.

This document—essentially a receipt—shows exactly what the typical working
age taxpaying household gets for their money in dollars and cents. The question
taxpayers and policy makers should ask is “Are you satisfied?” Do you think
spending priorities should change or stay the same? Do you think you’re getting
what you and the country deserve for your payment?

What You Paid For
An Itemized Receipt for the Typical Taxpayer
The typical working age household (a household led by a person between the
ages of 25 and 59) earned approximately $63,960 and paid $13,112 in federal
income and payroll taxes in 2007.* Below is a sample of exactly what that $13,112
paid for. See our attached spreadsheet for far greater detail.
• Social Security: $ 2,662.94
• Interest Payment on National Debt: $ 1,085.29
• War in Iraq: $ 593.48
• War in Afghanistan: $ 159.82
• All other Defense: $ 2,008.01
• Medicare: $ 1,697.96
• Veterans Benefits and Health Care: $ 355.03

* The income figures are derived from a Third Way analysis of the March 2007 Current Population Survey of household finances for 2006 and adjusted slightly upward to incorporate flat, inflation adjusted 2007 income gains. The tax burden is based upon the “The Distribution of Tax Cuts: Updated Projection: 2006,” from the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute which shows that a filer with this income should expect to pay 20.5% of their income in federal income and payrolltaxes (not including the employer’s share)...."

"• Health care research (NIH): $ 132.70
• Aid to the public schools (No Child Left Behind): $ 107.55
• National Parks $ 12.25
• Roads and Bridges $ 77.15
• Renewable Energy Research $ 6.67
• International AIDS prevention $ 14.87
• The Space Program (NASA) $ 74.53
• Health Care of Low Income Families (Medicaid): $ 872.92
• Border Security Fencing $ .13
• Income Assistance for the Disabled (SSI): $ 164.95
• Agriculture Subsidies $ 98.80
• Environmental Protection (EPA) $ 34.50
• Heating Assistance for Low Income Families: $ 9.90
• School Lunch/Breakfast Program: $ 46.09
• FBI, DEA, and ATF: $ 41.46
• Pell Grants for Low Income College Students: $ 62.55
• The Post Office: $ 2.95
• Consumer Product Safety Commission: $ .29
• Members of Congress and Staff: $ 8.44
• The President and White House Staff: $ .18
• The IRS $ 48.53
• Pork Barrel Projects: $ 60.45
• CIA: $ ???.??+

+ If we told you; we’d have to kill you. All sources for program spending come from the agency
budgets submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 with the exception of the following: War in Iraq and Afghanistan spending comes from the Congressional Research Service;earmarks/pork projects comes from Citizens Against Government Waste. All figures relate to fiscal year 2007 spending.

Why do we use “working age households” for this analysis? Working age households—households headed by people between the age of 25–59—represent approximately two-thirds of the adult population. Many younger filers (teenagers and the like) skew the median income level lower and many file separately so that they can get a lower tax rate than their parents. Old filers, particularly seniors, get most of their money through benefit transfers like Social Security, or other sources like pensions andinvestments. This income is taxed very differently than work income.

Politics as Usual

When did we get to the point that the style of the candidate superseded their substance? Right now we have liberals who are pointing fingers at each other and conservatives that seem equally intent on tripping up their rivals within the party. For the majority of us who are not political animals and who don't live for the subtle dagger of defamation, this has been a primary season that has left us all just a little woozy and the worse for wear. I consider myself a conservative. Not a die at all costs conservative. Not a one issue and I am done conservative, but a TRUE conservative. I think people should work for what they get. I think the military is there to defend our borders. I think that citizens should have the right to jobs, education and social welfare before we start giving away goods across the border or around the world. I think the government, like my family, should have to live within their own means. I don't want the government telling me what to do, what to wear or what to think. I don't want them meddling in my church and a surely don't want my church mixing it up with politicians. In short, I want old school constitutional justice and a Congress that understands the need for individuals to be accountable for their actions. And, right now I am considering voting for a Democrat.

Strange, you say? Not really. There's pretty clear evidence that the MainStreamMedia has gone out of its way to pump up the volume on the partisan rhetoric since 9/11. That has resulted in a variety of whispering campaigns that not only divide our nation into political regions, but that divides groups within these areas from each other. What used to be spicy, but liveable cocktail party banter has become a situation where you must tread on eggshell any place except home. And yet the vocal bullies on both sides try to sway and intimidate through a series of politically inspired antics that just leave a sour taste in my mouth. So the media has a great deal to answer for, including the unbelievable hype given to the early primaries. The anticipation of financial gain from such early voting led Florida and Michigan to move up their primaries, only to have their hands slapped by the DNC. So do you really think the DNC will deny entry and credentials of delegates from these two very important states? Or will Clinton's gamble to show up and "campaign" outside the realm of the acceptable primaries win her the nomination? And what of the Republicans. Several qualified candidates with measured and descriptive positions and platforms were ignored by a media that seems intent on choosing the nominee for the party by ignoring other contenders. And, not surprisingly, the Republican they support is the most liberal of the bunch. There's already talk of people simply staying home. And this could signal both a Democrat gain in the White House and a Democrat political bloodbath two years later in the midterms when "nice thoughts and pleasant behavior" doesn't produce magical changes in the way things are progressing domestically or internationally.

So, what to do?
Here's my plan. I do not trust Hillary Clinton. I think she's damaged goods with a mean streak that will lead to vindictive leadership in Congress. Punishing ones political opponents is not part of the job of President. I think John McCain is far more liberal and could probably run as a Democrat given his public stances on immigration and other topics. He's running on his legacy as a POW. And I admire his courage at that time BUT, that doesn't make him good for the position. In addition, he has a reputation for being very angry, very brusque and unwilling to admit his mistakes. If he was elected, he would enact most of the liberal agenda. But when that didn't work, the MSM and the pundits would still blame the Republicans-heck they will probably still blame President Bush-and nothing will change. The Congress would still be producing programs that we can't pay for and bills loaded with hidden earmarks that never make the light of day in discussion of their passage. The odd man out is Obama. Sure, he's liberal. But he is a former professor of constitutional law, which means he's studied the thing and knows the limits of power. He's not particularly tied to any one group of zealots such as Moveon.org or such. I am sure he would still push for a more liberal social agenda, but with a more measured eye towards the endgame. And if his agenda failed, the MSM could not blame Republicans and the midterms would give us an entire new Congress.

So it could be a rough couple of years boys and girls. Hold on to your hats, watch your backs and for God's sake, stop registering your guns, because that's the first thing they are going to pass.

My New Personal Political Agenda

I am dismayed by the way the primary season has run out. We have Hillary Clinton, actively campaigning in Michigan and Florida-states whose delegates aren't supposed to be seated because they move up their primaries. We have main stream media that is shaping the battlefield for a race between John McCain and some democrat regardless of what the general population wants. We have small homogeneous states picking and choosing candidates for the rest of us based on their limited and largely rural backgrounds. We have this candidate casting stones at the others and in general, if you are like me, you are sick to death of it.

My candidate is out. I really think that Fred Thompson had the most concise and logical platform of ideas. But he didn't run the campaign to the media's liking and so dropped out. Giuliani too, not my favorite but an early frontrunner, was scuttled by a media which wants to heap laurels on two small states and begin the bickering and backstabbing on a national scale. And what of Texas and other states whose primaries are down the road past Super Tuesday? It would seem that our votes don't matter. It would also seem that the candidates simply do not care. Why should I waste time and effort voting for someone who doesn't even know I exist?

So here's my strategy (or stratergery if you prefer.) Since I consider Clinton a vindictive and dangerous nominee who has too much ambition and is too clever by half, in a McCain v. Clinton election, I hold my nose and voter for McCain. BUT.....In a McCain v. Obama race, I choose Obama. Why? you ask. Because:
1. This would lay to rest the use of the "race card" in all public and governmental events.
2. If you are going to elect someone with liberal causes anyway, you might as well go whole hog and pick one that has the liberal street cred. That way when the wheels fall off, it won't be the Republicans stuck holding the bag, again.
3. I think that Obama is calmer, younger and more detail oriented than McCain. His background as a professor would cause him to be more analytical, and although they may not like it, more conservative in the measures he chooses to take. Unlike Clinton, his background is constitutional law and he knows the structure of the government and the limitations of the office of President.
4. The election of Clinton would play into every negative female CEO stereotype and set women back fifty years.
5. McCain is simply not reasonable as has been demonstrated in a number of contradictory stances on many public issues.
6. Clinton has a great deal of political baggage and political payback. The POTUS and Congress are already at their lowest ebb-Congress being lower-than before in history. We really don't need a radical ideologue to cram a bunch of heavy handed programs down the throats of a weakly controlled and slavish Congress.

Here's the REAL Conservative

There's a number of people, especially in the media, that want to have this political race turn into a cakewalk for liberals. One way that could happen is to have a quasi-conservative win the Republican nomination. Huckabee, McCain, Romney and Guiliani all have a history that is less than stellar in regard to the true conservatism of lower taxes, greater opportunity, national security and dismantling of the nanny net social structure that is gobbling more revenue than it creates. Here's just one example of how some candidates are choosing to hide their political history and run as quasi-conservatives. Look before you vote. And while you are looking, consider a TRUE CONSERVATIVE-Fred Thompson.
Story here.