Does the left still believe in checks and balances?

I had my political maturity develop in the 90's under Clinton and the great election in 1994 when Gingrich took over Congress and had a 54 seat swing, giving control of the House to Newt. To be honest, I liked the Contract with America and thought it was a great idea to nationalize local elections and provide a platform that a person was voting for regardless of the local nuances of the election. Brilliant in my opinion. And what were we told – that Americans like balance and checks against an overarching executive branch.

So where do we stand today? Well there is a potential for one party dominance that scares the crap out of me. Reuters by way of Yahoo News is reporting that:

Due largely to the unpopularity of President George W. Bush and the worst U.S. economic crisis since The Great Depression, Democrats may expand their control of the Senate and House of Representatives to the highest levels in decades. They even have a shot at a Senate majority big enough to prevent Republicans from blocking legislation with procedural hurdles.

So the democrats have a chance of getting a filibuster proof majority. Anyone have a problem with this? Basically whatever Obama (if he wins) gets and/or Pelosi or Reid (if they get this majority) wants, gets signed by a (gasp!) President Obama. This does not bode well for this country. But not to be outdone, Howard Dean, talking to Roll Call stated ""Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it's time to give the other party a chance," in an article entitled "Dean: One-Party Rule Would Rule". I have a basic problem with Dean considering a party "rules". That is a term that is reserved for some sovereign entity and isn't it interesting that he (a noted leftie and a Democrat candidate for president) considers government (by the will of the people) as ruling. One more over he sees how great it would be to have no checks on the democrats. Scary stuff but revealing.

So Keith Olbermann noted back in 2006 was on one of his crazy rants about Bush (you know Keith – Mr Fair and Balanced) made a case during the 2006 election as to why it was important to check Bush's power (by electing democrats). He writes on the MSNBC web site (again in 2006):

"Those vaunted Founding Fathers of ours have been so quoted up, that they appear as marble statues: like the chiseled guards of China, or the faces on Mount Rushmore. But in fact they were practical people and the thing they obviously feared most was a government of men and not laws.

They provided the checks and balances for a reason.

No one man could run the government the way he saw fit -- unless he, at the least, took into consideration what those he governed saw.

A House of Representatives would be the people's eyes.

A Senate would be the corrective force on that House.

An executive would do the work, and hold the Constitution to his chest like his child.

A Supreme Court would oversee it all.

Checks and balances." (Keith Olbermann - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15595139/)

So I am waiting for Keith to write another rant about how we need to ensure a potential President Obama is balanced. But I guess just like "diversity" balance is a term that is used only when someone is not getting what they want. Democratic rule does not need any balance right Keith?

OS

Trying to figure out taxes

Ok, so it doesn't look so good for McCain. Obama has assured everyone that he won't raise taxes (even checked out his website). What his website states as one fact is that "The Obama Plan Provides Generous Tax Cuts for Almost All American Families – and will not raise any tax rate on families making less than $250,000 per year, period!" This is part of the complete Obama tax plan found here - http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Facts_FINAL.pdf)

Ok – so what do you pay in taxes? I did some looking and found the 2008 Tax brackets here. There are six tax rates - 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. So a person making a respectable 100k/yr would pay $21978.25 in taxes, around 22% when all is said and done. But recall that Obama is going to probably let the Bush tax cuts expire (as they are supposed to do in 2010) which would increase the rates. Obama states this again on his website – "Under the Obama Plan, No One Will Pay Higher Tax Rates Than They Paid in The 1990s." So what was the rate in 1999 (before the Bush Tax rates). My source is http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/1999_i1040trs.pdf

A person making 100k in 1999 would pay $25779 in taxes. That is a savings of around $3800 – not!!! So if I read the plan right, Obama is actually going to raise taxes on folks making 100k by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Isn't it fair to say that is part of his plan? So how the hell can he say that families making less than $250k will not see their taxes raised?

Don't believe me – check out this story on the USA Today Website. Entitled "Rolling back Bush's tax cuts will pay for proposals, Obama says" Obama is quoted as saying:

"During an hour-long talk, Obama promoted eliminating some of the income tax cuts enacted under President Bush, but resisted characterizing them as a tax increase."

"The Illinois senator said that as president, he would roll back income tax cuts for higher incomes to pay for his policy proposals."

But ok folks – drink the Kool Aid and cast your ballot for Obama. As Jesus said on the Cross – "… forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)". What scares me is that folks know what they are doing and are actually pulling the lever wanting this yahoo in office and his socialist and extreme leftward policies. But what is really important is focusing on Sarah Palin's wardrobe right?

OS

Throwing money at what ails us

Yahoo News has a story on what the World Health Organization (WHO) on the top three killers of mankind. They are (drum roll please) - heart ailments, infectious diseases and cancer. So I went over to the CDC website to see how the US stacks up against this and the CDC reports that the top three killers Heart disease, Cancer and Stroke. So, the next question I had to ask is what do we spend our money on (i.e. what does the US spend money on to combat)? So I went to the National Institute for Health and found that the US spent (this year):

on Cancer 5652 Million = 5.7 Billion
on Heart Disease - 2122 Million = 2.1 Billion
on Stroke - 340 Million

So I say to myself - hey that is respectable - but why is AIDS funding so high?  Currently the US spends 2913 Million in AIDS Funding (that is 2.9 Billion) and that does not include what we kick in to fight Global AIDS. Is this disturbing at all to anyone else? I started poking around and came across the FAIR Foundation (or Fair Allocation in Research) online at http://fairfoundation.org/index.html

FAIR advocates a better allocation of funding for bio-medical research rather than the current favoritism that is given AIDS research as there are more deaths attributed to so many other diseases than the politically charged AIDS. The Fair website also notes:

The amounts spent on the “Health Effects of Climate Change,” "Global Warming Climate Change" and "Climate Change" are greater than the funding for each of these: brain cancer, cystic fibrosis, autism, Down Syndrome, SIDS, child leukemia, cerebral palsy, COPD, Huntington's Disease, Hodgkin’s Disease, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, uterine cancer and over six thousand other illnesses. 

Why make a disease political? Because AIDS has so much star power behind it I guess. I would much rather see our money going to Alzheimer's research but that is me. FAIR's Mission seems reasonable - "fair and equitable distribution of research funds by our government for all diseases. A disease’s mortality rate shall be given emphasis in determining allocations, and other secondary factors shall be utilized to insure diseases that cause great suffering but have low mortality rates will also receive significantly increased funding." Again - seems reasonable but I guess when we discovered all these nasty little diseases, the researchers didn't bet on the fact that they needed to have Hollywood buy in to their cause to get all that Government Green (aka cash).

And one more thing...President Bush had pledged more than 15 Billion to fight AIDS in his 2003 State of the Union Address. !5 Billion. Well heads up - Obama in 2006 while speaking at the 2006 Global Summit on AIDS and the Church stated:

But our third priority should be to actually boost our contribution to this effort. With all that is left to be done in this struggle - with all the other areas of the world that need our help - it's time for us to add at least an additional $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years to strengthen and expand the program to places like Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, where the pandemic will soon reach crisis proportions.

Of course, given all the strains that have been placed on the U.S. budget, and given the extraordinary needs that we face here at home, it may be hard to find the money. But I believe we must try. I believe it will prove to be a wise investment.

So in case anyone is counting - that is another $5 Billion. But only those "rich" people are going to get a tax raise. Yeah right.

OS

Quick weekend note on politics and economics

Thanks to Drudge for this great story out of the SouthCoastToday.com that quotes one of our many local embarrassments, Rep Barney Frank. Frank states that the Dems want to have another stimulus package post a presumably Obama win. Stimulus package = bribe for folks to go out and spend money they don't have on things they don't need so the economy looks like it is improving. This new stimulus package would include "... money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday."

So extended unemployment benefits? And why would we need those...well if you continue to read the story it seems that Frank also wants a 25% cut in the military budget. He (Frank) is qouted as saying "... the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay."

Heads up you military contractors as well as "upper-income taxpayers". First off, the focus on a democtatic administration will be on cutting the military budget that pays for a lot of the high tech work that is going on in the industry. Good thing there will be extended unemployment benefits. And of course there is the swipe at those upper-income taxpayers. I read the story and didn't see anywhere what the upper income was according to Rep. Frank but the story did end with this quote: "And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said."

Note - not upper bracket but upper brackets [plural]. There is no flipping way Obama can pay for all the social engineering and government programs he wants to implement by taking only those that make $250000 or more. And in doing so, what he telegraphs is his lack of appreciation for the workers out there that bust their hump to make more and to give their family more (I count myself among them at least with my attitude). What Obama is doing is removing incentive to hard work and applying incentive to vote democrat for more hand outs. Why would I want a raise and take on more work or responsibility if the net outcome is me actually paying more to the Government? What is this...Bizarro world?

All you people that think that it is ok to take from someone else so you get a little more are actually promoting and supporting a socialistic Government and view (unfairly in my opinion) the "rich" as folks who have gotten their wealth by somehow cheating you and others like you. In 2007 37.3 million people which is 12.5 percent of the total U.S. population were reported living in poverty. Is it due to Bill Gates or the other "rich folks" in America? Unfortunately that seems to be the message coming from Obama - economics is a zero sum game where for one person to get rich, someone else must lose. But don't worry!! Obama wants to help out...as he is quoted from Fox News below after his now infamous encounter with Joe the Plumber:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There you have it folks - let's spread that wealth around but we need the Government to help out. What - so wealth is like jelly on an English Muffin? Actually what I think is true that if the economy is good for folks from the top down, it is good for everybody because the top folks have the money and are taking the risks and are hiring employees, truly spreading the wealth around. The only thing Government can do in this model is get in the way.  I can't believe this guy is so close to the Presidency. 

OS

The persistence of racism?

So let me get this straight - Obama is a heart beat away from the Presidency and instead of celebrating this, some in the media want to focus on the persistence of racism in the US. Case in point - Reuters reported yesterday that "Ugly election incidents show lingering racism". The evidence -

"A cardboard likeness of Barack Obama was found strung from fishing wire at a university, the Democratic presidential nominee's face was depicted on mock food stamps, the body of a black bear was left at another university with Obama posters attached to it."

I didn't see any mention in the article about the halloween display that showed Obama running from John McCain dressed as a KKK Klansman. 



Thanks to http://www.whudat.com/for the image. Wouldn't this be considered Racism? What about the fact that "84% of black voters identify themselves as Obama supporters". Isn't this a little racist? Shouldn't the media do some investigating and ascertain why Obama has such a high level of support from the Black Community and why McCain does not? I am sure it is not due to race. 

To make matters a little more confusing, there is an article today that states "Surging Obama campaign suggests US racism on the wane" on the Christian Science Monitor website. The article quotes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter as saying “The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States would be the greatest thing for racial reconciliation and racial understanding that we could have happen in this country,”. This country should not elect a president to send a message about racial reconciliation in my humble opinion. We should elect the person who can best lead this country for the next four years given the uncertain nature of our economy, culture and the world. To cast a vote for anything other than that seems foolhardy and quite frankly racist.

Newsweek Magazine had a story that was entitled "What if Obama loses"? The story focused on the African American community and their reactions if (a big "if") John McCain is elected President. The story notes that "(t)here's not a lot of anger—yet—but you can start to sense the potential for it." Nothing like a little threat to get the blood pumping right? The story continues with a quote from Daetwon Fisher, 21, a construction worker from Long Beach, Calif. "I'm going to be mad, real mad, if he doesn't win" Fisher states "Because for him to come this far and lose will be just shady and a slap in black people's faces. I know there is already talk about protests and stuff if he loses, and I'm down for that." 

So what can we take from this? That if Obama loses it will be shady and not fair? What message is being communicated to these people? That the establishment is against them and that they can't expect a fair shake. This is truly sad for me to read as it is indicative of just how far the racial divide is and how it is continuing to be reinforced. What if Obama loses because a majority of voters reject his socialist policies? What if Obama loses because of his inexperience? What if America doesn't want an extreme liberal agenda pushed on it and most Americans were proud of their country even before Obama came onto political scene (remember Michelle Obama's remark "“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change").

In any event, if Obama loses it will not be because he is black, it is because he is the lesser of the two candidates. Hey - someone had to say it.

OS

Why relationships matter.

So like a lot of people, folks in my circle of friends are wondering why Obama's relationship with a terrorist is a big deal? They cite that Obama was 8 when Bill Ayers did all those bad things and it isn't indicative of his (Obama's) feelings.

Well why did Obama (and his wife) continue to be friends with Ayers and his wife? Shouldn't folks like that be ostracized by civilized society? Isn't it illustrative that Ayers has not repented. Fox News (The Oreilly Factor) reports that Ayers stated in 2002 that:

"I considered myself partly an anarchist then. I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean, I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist, which is to say, you know, I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism appealing. "

Does anyone have a problem with this sort of person being someone Obama, potentially our next President is friendly with? Do we want Ayers sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom? A person is not allowed to join the military if he or she has been  involved with a group who advocates the violent overthrow of the government. Given that Obama will be Commander in Chief (God Forbid) - shouldn't that at least give us pause and demand a full accounting by the lapdog media as to who this terrorist is?

Does anyone remember Trent Lott? Trent Lott was the Senate Republican Leader when at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond (who ran for President in 1948 as a Dixiecrat)  stated "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." So some remark at a party referring to a Presidential race in 1948 was enough for the media, the left and some republicans to call for Lott's resignation. He eventually resigned his Senate Leadership post. 

Relationships matter and who we associate with matters as it reveals much about ourselves and what we cherish. Look to the people who are associated with Obama and McCain and the other politicians that we are choosing to lead this country in November. Better yet, imagine you are looking to enter into a relationship with someone, possibly long term. Doesn't his or her friends, associates as well as his or her character matter? Shouldn't we at least have a similar metric for our President?

OS

Opening Salvo

I am a transplant from Google's Blogger site (my old site is here - http://outspokenroman.blogspot.com/) and since I didn't want Google to control everything, I thought I would shift my musings/rants to WordPress. So far, it has been a smooth transition.

So what do I write about? Usual comments on the culture and political scene. I am not a fan of Liberalism and Liberals in general as plans that call for more government control over our lives just strike me as the opposite of freedom. I believe in the Constitution and feel it has served this country well for more than 200 years and doesn't need to be a "living" document to maintain its relvancy for our society today. I believe our rights as citizens do not come from Government therefore Government can't take them away - a great provision put in place by the founders of this country. Too many people want to sacrifice their freedoms for a measure of security - an idea I find shocking. 

Living in Boston offers up many opportunities to rant about the senseless and the innane and for that I am thankful. This state is full of loony folks and offer me more than enough ammunition to keep me amused and to keep this blog full.

Final thought - P.J. O’Rourke said that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away. Thoughts like that keep me warm at night. 

So away we go.