The Iowa debate, now behind us, encourages me about the potential conservative leadership we could see running the country in 2012. Don’t listen to the media elites who define the Republican primary as Romney and a bunch of also-rans. Their implication is our field is weak and we should be disheartened. Their goal is to pick our candidate for us. They want any Republican-in-name-only (RINO) they can find. Romney is not really a conservative. He is a step above John McCain. Well, he does have business experience so maybe he is two steps above McCain. Make no mistake conservative candidates are what the Obama campaign and liberal elites fear most. Whenever Romney is feared and Bachmann is not, you know Bachmann should be the candidate and Romney not.
We have some seriously smart candidates who understand the precarious position our country is in. These candidates identify themselves as conservatives and I believe will govern as conservatives.
Newt Gingerich proved his thorough grasp of issues, both domestic and foreign. His ability to articulate common sense solutions should hearten any conservative. Conventional wisdom says Newt’s favorability ratings are too low for election. He is too emotional. He created too many enemies as Speaker of the House. With the rise of the Tea Party and the country’s overall mood being one of intense frustration, Newt’s passion just might resonate during this moment in history. If he can stay around long enough to get enough face time during debates, I predict his stock will rise quickly because clearly he articulates our values better than anyone else.
Michele Bachmann demonstrates continued strength under unrelenting pressure. The Left hates her. If the Left hates her, you know she would be good for the country. Her appeal for many lies in unwavering support of conservative values when many others fold. She doesn’t capitulate every time the other side uses scare tactics to push Republicans around. She’s been a bulldog against the Obama-Pelosi agenda at every turn. She’s from a blue state, in Minnesota, and grew up in another blue state, Iowa. Two blue states would be in play that otherwise would still likely go for President Obama. A calculation we should not lose sight of.
Herman Cain and Rick Santorum offer two different, yet equally compelling reasons to get excited Cain is a successful business man. He understands what conditions must exist if you want job growth and comes across as very practical. He would be a champion to the private sector. Santorum is a traditional social conservative. He believes social values are still every bit as important as economic ones. Much of the conservative movement seems to have ditched social issues with the errant belief jobs are more important than the human soul. Santorum reminds us this isn’t true.
What about Rick Perry and Sarah Palin? The media is terrified of a Palin candidacy. I know Sarah is portrayed as too dumb for the office, but the narrative is false and created by a media obsessed with making any conservative woman look stupid. Sarah is adored by many and would be a formidable opponent the moment her candidacy was announced. CNN knows it and so should you. Perry comes from a state, in Texas, that people flock to for jobs. Texas is one of the few job creating states in the country right now. His record on job growth is sorely needed to contrast with President Obama’s dismal numbers. Perry, like Santorum, considers social issues just as important as economic ones.
Conservatives should hold their heads high. I realize anything really would be better than what we have now, but we shouldn’t settle for Mitt Romney when so many true conservatives are ready and able to lead.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Fair Share
While fingers point over who is to blame for the recent U.S. credit downgrade, one talking point continually trotted out is we are in this mess because rich people don’t want to pay their fair share. Exactly what is “fair share”? Can this be quantified? And isn’t this the wrong starting question anyway? The question should be, “How much is needed to fund basic government services as specified by the powers reserved for congress in the Constitution”? The filter should never be, “We need to provide birth control for people so who do we find to pay for this”?
Evaluate the predicament we are in and most signs point back to egregious spending in areas the government should never be allowed into in the first place.
Let’s assume though, for sake of analysis, we need to assign a definition to “fair share.” I’ve asked many a person using this term what fair actually is. I never get an answer. Usually I get ignored or get a blank stare or a redirected question. Fair appears to be a floating term meant to change the conversation whenever more revenue is perceived to be needed. Fairness is also usually defined by the recipients and not the contributors. Fairness for how long and hard you make others work to pay for their own family plus the 50% who pay nothing in federal taxes is never even thought of.
I think most Americans, in fact I know most Americans, are a generous lot. We have no problem helping others in need. Remember Haiti’s earthquake and the $1billion+ the United States raised? The rub is when the government tries to be all things to all people. We’ve built up a government alter from which all with needs are supposed to seek. It’s becoming ingrained in our culture. Why would somebody “want to pay more” voluntarily when the expectation is somebody else (the government) will take care of the need?
Most of the rich as defined by the fair share crowd already pay close to 50% in federal, state, local & FICA taxes. They pay a lifetime of 6.2% FICA with no Social Security benefits of their own (taxed away) because they earn too much. They pay federal taxes when half the country pays none. If 50% isn’t fair, what percentage is? How much more work, stress, time away from family, and risk taking are expected of these people before they’ve paid their fair share?
The dialog needs to change in this country if we want our vibrant economy back. The 50% not paying tax now should be paying something even if it is 5%. They need skin in the game, especially since it would be human nature to vote for more entitlements and let somebody else pay for it.
Evaluate the predicament we are in and most signs point back to egregious spending in areas the government should never be allowed into in the first place.
Let’s assume though, for sake of analysis, we need to assign a definition to “fair share.” I’ve asked many a person using this term what fair actually is. I never get an answer. Usually I get ignored or get a blank stare or a redirected question. Fair appears to be a floating term meant to change the conversation whenever more revenue is perceived to be needed. Fairness is also usually defined by the recipients and not the contributors. Fairness for how long and hard you make others work to pay for their own family plus the 50% who pay nothing in federal taxes is never even thought of.
I think most Americans, in fact I know most Americans, are a generous lot. We have no problem helping others in need. Remember Haiti’s earthquake and the $1billion+ the United States raised? The rub is when the government tries to be all things to all people. We’ve built up a government alter from which all with needs are supposed to seek. It’s becoming ingrained in our culture. Why would somebody “want to pay more” voluntarily when the expectation is somebody else (the government) will take care of the need?
Most of the rich as defined by the fair share crowd already pay close to 50% in federal, state, local & FICA taxes. They pay a lifetime of 6.2% FICA with no Social Security benefits of their own (taxed away) because they earn too much. They pay federal taxes when half the country pays none. If 50% isn’t fair, what percentage is? How much more work, stress, time away from family, and risk taking are expected of these people before they’ve paid their fair share?
The dialog needs to change in this country if we want our vibrant economy back. The 50% not paying tax now should be paying something even if it is 5%. They need skin in the game, especially since it would be human nature to vote for more entitlements and let somebody else pay for it.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Bloodbath
Wasn’t a crisis supposed to be averted with the stroke of President Obama’s pen merely a week ago? We were certainly told so. Democrats and Republicans were touting the genius of their two-tiered $2.5 trillion spending reductions. Republicans, wanting additional spending cuts, won a “moral victory” by changing the dialog in Washington. Democrats, not happy there were no tax increases, won a “moral victory” because no meaningful entitlement reforms took place. Investors (many of which are US taxpayers) are now down $2 trillion in personal wealth in merely three days.
As touted during the debate by many of us using simple math this deal was inadequate. It kicked the can down the road. Our core problems were not addressed. Most of the dialog in the media was short-sighted and bent through the prism of class envy without a shred of honest math put forward. Many on the Right, ignoring why they were elected in 2010, ran scared by an artificial deadline and presidential scare tactics. They feared Americans were going to blame them for asking their government to stop the runaway spending.
Here are some simple insights on the topic as you discuss with your friends America’s first debt downgrade in ninety seven years.
• No amount of taxation is going to fix this. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or sum of America’s total output, is $14 trillion dollars. This is not total PROFIT but total output. Total PROFITS are much less than total output. Our national debt is $14+ trillion dollars. It would take a 100% tax on everybody’s output to eradicate the debt. Of course then we would all be bankrupt and living in tent cities as none of us would have any money.
• Revenue is not the problem. Revenues have more than tripled since 1965. Adjusted for inflation, in 2010 we collected around $1.9 trillion. The highest dollars ever received were just four years ago at $2.4 trillion. To believe revenue shortfalls drive our debt problem ignores common sense and is often bandied about by those who want more of a say in how other people’s money is spent.
• Spending IS the problem. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent. Congress has not passed a budget in three years. Spending is up 27% in two years. AFTER the recent debt ceiling agreement, our debt is expected to be just $22 trillion instead of $25 trillion. In the next ten years our economy would have to increase by 57% just to keep pace with the debt. We are on an exponential spending spree already.
• Reduce spending by 1% a year from 2010 levels for six years and your deficit is balanced. This hardly tells grandma to drop dead.
America is the Earth’s last great hope for freedom. We remain a beacon of light in a very troubled world. While our reputation has been sullied our spirit does not have to. There is time to recover if we face our problems honestly. We need politicians who will do the same.
As touted during the debate by many of us using simple math this deal was inadequate. It kicked the can down the road. Our core problems were not addressed. Most of the dialog in the media was short-sighted and bent through the prism of class envy without a shred of honest math put forward. Many on the Right, ignoring why they were elected in 2010, ran scared by an artificial deadline and presidential scare tactics. They feared Americans were going to blame them for asking their government to stop the runaway spending.
Here are some simple insights on the topic as you discuss with your friends America’s first debt downgrade in ninety seven years.
• No amount of taxation is going to fix this. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or sum of America’s total output, is $14 trillion dollars. This is not total PROFIT but total output. Total PROFITS are much less than total output. Our national debt is $14+ trillion dollars. It would take a 100% tax on everybody’s output to eradicate the debt. Of course then we would all be bankrupt and living in tent cities as none of us would have any money.
• Revenue is not the problem. Revenues have more than tripled since 1965. Adjusted for inflation, in 2010 we collected around $1.9 trillion. The highest dollars ever received were just four years ago at $2.4 trillion. To believe revenue shortfalls drive our debt problem ignores common sense and is often bandied about by those who want more of a say in how other people’s money is spent.
• Spending IS the problem. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent. Congress has not passed a budget in three years. Spending is up 27% in two years. AFTER the recent debt ceiling agreement, our debt is expected to be just $22 trillion instead of $25 trillion. In the next ten years our economy would have to increase by 57% just to keep pace with the debt. We are on an exponential spending spree already.
• Reduce spending by 1% a year from 2010 levels for six years and your deficit is balanced. This hardly tells grandma to drop dead.
America is the Earth’s last great hope for freedom. We remain a beacon of light in a very troubled world. While our reputation has been sullied our spirit does not have to. There is time to recover if we face our problems honestly. We need politicians who will do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
