My friend posting a comment as anonymous wrote, “I feel it in my bones that something cataclysmic is coming.” Hyperbole? Perhaps! Written after the writer has spent two tours of duty in Iraq; maybe not.
Most of us living in America now have learned about the range of human achievement and depravity through books of history and the reporting and experiences of others. Most of us living in America now have never come close to the depravity end of this spectrum. Most of us feel immune to the worst of what humanity has to offer, but my friend, serving in Iraq, did experience and live depravity up close and personal. He no longer feels immune.
I don’t yet share his pessimism, but I do know depressions and wars and heartaches are just as normal for humanity as prosperity and peace and happiness. Americans have enjoyed many years of relative peace and prosperity. Could we handle the depravity end of the spectrum? Could we even imagine a world where laws are routinely ignored, where justice is a quaint concept, where poverty is most common, and where wealth and power rule supreme?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
Change and Hope
The American electorate, as a whole, has chosen to have a future of safety nets, while rejecting a future of liberty. Not that Senator McCain ever advocated, or would ever advocate liberty, but the election of Senator Obama should be interpreted mostly as a vote to relieve the fear many Americans have. Fear of losing their ability to earn an income, fear of not being able to afford health care, and fear of a future run by corporations. Our choice of President-elect Obama may not be the most principled choice, but it is a pragmatic choice when considering all of the uncertainty exposed by the financial crisis, executive pay, and the loss of jobs to outsourcing.
Americans have rejected opportunity in favor of certainty. When we go to bed at night, we want to know we will be able to sleep in a bed the next night, regardless of our ability to earn a living for ourselves and our families. Most Americans, including many Republicans, are tired of being afraid.
Perhaps in 4 or 8 or 12 years, the majority of Americans will vote for the pendulum to swing back in favor of liberty, but I suspect that individual liberty, as envisioned by the signers of the American Constitution, is a fading concept of the past. The world is too complex, governments are too powerful, and corporations are too unprincipled, for individuals to ever again feel free to determine their own destiny.
President-elect Obama ran on change and hope. Washington will change from a central government that debates and determines individual rights to a government that debates and determines group rights. Future legislative fights will be group against group.
I can’t imagine ever joining a union or any other group. I don’t even feel comfortable describing myself as an evangelical because it sounds like I have joined a political group.
I may be spending the rest of my life preparing to die as a dinosaur. I hope not.
Americans have rejected opportunity in favor of certainty. When we go to bed at night, we want to know we will be able to sleep in a bed the next night, regardless of our ability to earn a living for ourselves and our families. Most Americans, including many Republicans, are tired of being afraid.
Perhaps in 4 or 8 or 12 years, the majority of Americans will vote for the pendulum to swing back in favor of liberty, but I suspect that individual liberty, as envisioned by the signers of the American Constitution, is a fading concept of the past. The world is too complex, governments are too powerful, and corporations are too unprincipled, for individuals to ever again feel free to determine their own destiny.
President-elect Obama ran on change and hope. Washington will change from a central government that debates and determines individual rights to a government that debates and determines group rights. Future legislative fights will be group against group.
I can’t imagine ever joining a union or any other group. I don’t even feel comfortable describing myself as an evangelical because it sounds like I have joined a political group.
I may be spending the rest of my life preparing to die as a dinosaur. I hope not.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Election Prognosis
I’m usually not in the prediction business, but why do we have these big elections every four years if pundits can’t take advantage of the opportunity to make fools out of themselves? Since I fancy myself a pundit, here goes:
Modern presidential elections are decided by undecided boobs who vote for the most attractive candidate as well as devious insiders who game the system to their candidates advantage. Almost always, the best looking, best sounding, and best funded candidate wins regardless of the issues.
John McCain and Barrack Obama are both easier on my ears than Bush, Gore, or Kerry. John McCain is more clear and more specific when he speaks while Barrack Obama is more pleasant, more eloquent, and less prone to verbal mistakes. Slight edge Obama.
Neither McCain nor Obama would ever be mistaken for a Kennedy or an Eisenhower, but both seem equally presentable. Both also have attractive wife’s. However, since Cindy McCain is beyond attractive; she is gorgeous, slight edge McCain.
Personally, I could easily sit down and have a beer with John McCain and listen to stories about his life, while if I ever had contact with Barrack Obama, I couldn’t get away from him quick enough. However, I can’t judge undecided’s by how I feel, so I give likeability a tie.
Campaign money and campaign operatives are where this election will be settled. A little grease in the palm of the right campaign official in a few key states may turn a state or two and a horde of lawyers ready to challenge any and all polling irregularities can shine the media focus in the wrong places. (The media would probably cover the wrong events anyway without the lawyers, but the lawyers will make sure it happens.)
I don’t trust the polls, but I do trust the money. Big edge Obama.
McCain needs a miracle.
Update: Bob Krumm is calling Pennsylvania for the lawyers.
Modern presidential elections are decided by undecided boobs who vote for the most attractive candidate as well as devious insiders who game the system to their candidates advantage. Almost always, the best looking, best sounding, and best funded candidate wins regardless of the issues.
John McCain and Barrack Obama are both easier on my ears than Bush, Gore, or Kerry. John McCain is more clear and more specific when he speaks while Barrack Obama is more pleasant, more eloquent, and less prone to verbal mistakes. Slight edge Obama.
Neither McCain nor Obama would ever be mistaken for a Kennedy or an Eisenhower, but both seem equally presentable. Both also have attractive wife’s. However, since Cindy McCain is beyond attractive; she is gorgeous, slight edge McCain.
Personally, I could easily sit down and have a beer with John McCain and listen to stories about his life, while if I ever had contact with Barrack Obama, I couldn’t get away from him quick enough. However, I can’t judge undecided’s by how I feel, so I give likeability a tie.
Campaign money and campaign operatives are where this election will be settled. A little grease in the palm of the right campaign official in a few key states may turn a state or two and a horde of lawyers ready to challenge any and all polling irregularities can shine the media focus in the wrong places. (The media would probably cover the wrong events anyway without the lawyers, but the lawyers will make sure it happens.)
I don’t trust the polls, but I do trust the money. Big edge Obama.
McCain needs a miracle.
Update: Bob Krumm is calling Pennsylvania for the lawyers.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Hole Rule
When we find ourselves in a hole, it is usually prudent to stop digging.
The shovel for many holes is the good intentions of the digger.
Way back in 1977, the United States Congress enacted a new law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The purpose for this new law was for the Federal Government to monitor and ensure that local banks were making loans to home buyers in low and moderate income areas. Then in 1992, congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act which allowed Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac to assume responsibility for home loans made to low income buyers.
Low income buyers are not at all responsible for the current financial mess, but as low income buyers were approved for home loans that did not meet traditional credit standards, the demand for houses and the asking price for houses increased [basic economics]. As prices increased, fewer buyers qualified for traditional home loans which meant that more and more home buyers needed sub-prime loans backed by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As more and more low and middle income buyers took advantage of sub-prime loans, more and more middle and high income buyers took advantage of lax lending standards to purchase new homes. Many of these buyers were investors and speculators. This Ponzi scheme finally reached a point where many buyers, not even able to pay their interest only loans, walked away from their property and mortgage with nothing to lose but their credit rating. Prices plummeted, banks ended up with more debt than equity, and new lending stopped.
The solution to the problems caused by easy credit seems to be more easy, perhaps even easier, credit for banks and businesses.
At some point we will have to suffer the consequences of easy credit. Perhaps it is time to stop digging.
The shovel for many holes is the good intentions of the digger.
Way back in 1977, the United States Congress enacted a new law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The purpose for this new law was for the Federal Government to monitor and ensure that local banks were making loans to home buyers in low and moderate income areas. Then in 1992, congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act which allowed Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac to assume responsibility for home loans made to low income buyers.
FHEFSSA established risk-based and minimum capital standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, it established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas.
Low income buyers are not at all responsible for the current financial mess, but as low income buyers were approved for home loans that did not meet traditional credit standards, the demand for houses and the asking price for houses increased [basic economics]. As prices increased, fewer buyers qualified for traditional home loans which meant that more and more home buyers needed sub-prime loans backed by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As more and more low and middle income buyers took advantage of sub-prime loans, more and more middle and high income buyers took advantage of lax lending standards to purchase new homes. Many of these buyers were investors and speculators. This Ponzi scheme finally reached a point where many buyers, not even able to pay their interest only loans, walked away from their property and mortgage with nothing to lose but their credit rating. Prices plummeted, banks ended up with more debt than equity, and new lending stopped.
The solution to the problems caused by easy credit seems to be more easy, perhaps even easier, credit for banks and businesses.
At some point we will have to suffer the consequences of easy credit. Perhaps it is time to stop digging.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Taxpayer Bailout
I am amused at how the word “taxpayer” gets attached to the word “bailout” when referring to the Paulson Plan and other congressional proposals to loosen the credit markets. Add another word, “crisis”, and we have created a narrative that makes the solution for relieving the tight credit markets unacceptable to the general public.
I don’t recall the 200 billion dollars the Federal government pledged to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as a “taxpayer bailout” of greedy home owners who chose to live in a flood zone. I don’t recall the words “taxpayer bailout” ever being used in regards to the way FEMA spends money and guarantees loans after any natural disaster. Social Security, for those who fail to plan for retirement, Amtrak and farm subsidies, and most every other extra Constitutional program of the Federal government are never referred to as “taxpayer bailouts”. Can you even imagine National health care being referred to as a “taxpayer bailout” for those who don’t want to pay for health care?
Only about 60% of American adults pay Federal Income taxes in any given year and the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 33% of the total. So if the taxpayers were to pay for the Paulson Plan, the rich would be bailing out the rich. However, since there isn’t a relationship between federal taxes and federal spending, the idea that taxpayers are really paying for anything specific nowadays is laughable. The verbiage “taxpayer bailout” is a hyper-narrative to create controversy, and nothing more.
I can live with worthless investments and meaningless money. I will still get up and go to work in the morning and hug my wife and kids when I get home from work at night. What really bothers me though is living in a society where words have become meaningless.
I don’t recall the 200 billion dollars the Federal government pledged to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as a “taxpayer bailout” of greedy home owners who chose to live in a flood zone. I don’t recall the words “taxpayer bailout” ever being used in regards to the way FEMA spends money and guarantees loans after any natural disaster. Social Security, for those who fail to plan for retirement, Amtrak and farm subsidies, and most every other extra Constitutional program of the Federal government are never referred to as “taxpayer bailouts”. Can you even imagine National health care being referred to as a “taxpayer bailout” for those who don’t want to pay for health care?
Only about 60% of American adults pay Federal Income taxes in any given year and the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 33% of the total. So if the taxpayers were to pay for the Paulson Plan, the rich would be bailing out the rich. However, since there isn’t a relationship between federal taxes and federal spending, the idea that taxpayers are really paying for anything specific nowadays is laughable. The verbiage “taxpayer bailout” is a hyper-narrative to create controversy, and nothing more.
I can live with worthless investments and meaningless money. I will still get up and go to work in the morning and hug my wife and kids when I get home from work at night. What really bothers me though is living in a society where words have become meaningless.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Human Nature and Government
Within the soul of every human being is a desire to be free; a desire to make the individual choices that create the most individual happiness and fulfillment. However, none of us are islands of individual happiness and fulfillment. Our individual happiness and fulfillment could not exist without the love, affirmation, and support of many other people who also have their own desire for individual happiness and fulfillment.
When two or more people who depend on each other for happiness have different ideas about what makes for happiness and fulfillment, conflict between the two or the group is inevitable. Often times, this conflict results in one, or both, or all of the people in a relationship trying to exert control over the others. This happens in both one on one relationships like marriage and group relationships like government.
Throughout most of history, this conflict for happiness and fulfillment was resolved by the person or persons with the most power and strength, often through devious and evil methods, exerting their power and strength to control others. Governments were controlled by Kings and Leaders with the biggest and usually most ruthless armies. Families were controlled by men who possessed more strength than women. Even the Catholic Church turned into an organization controlled by the powerful. The Greeks and Romans dispersed some of this authority to more of their citizens, but government still boiled down to having those with power making most of the decisions and controlling those without power.
Early Americans had a better idea for allowing more freedom and individual choices. The American founding fathers (and mothers) said every human has certain rights that can't be taken away or abused by government. They said everyone has the right to freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), not just the humans with power. They believed every citizen in America should pursue their own objectives as long as those objectives did not interfere with the freedom of their co-citizens. Obviously, America never completely obtained this ideal, but it was still a noble idea.
I have come to realize there is no right way for me to make others do the things I want them to do or to make others pay for the things I want. (Thy shall not steal.) Therefore, my view of government is that government should protect it's citizens from force and fraud, but very little else. I believe government should be small and limited. Apparently, most Americans now believe more like the Greeks and Romans where the majority get to use the coercive force of government to get the minority to succumb.
When two or more people who depend on each other for happiness have different ideas about what makes for happiness and fulfillment, conflict between the two or the group is inevitable. Often times, this conflict results in one, or both, or all of the people in a relationship trying to exert control over the others. This happens in both one on one relationships like marriage and group relationships like government.
Throughout most of history, this conflict for happiness and fulfillment was resolved by the person or persons with the most power and strength, often through devious and evil methods, exerting their power and strength to control others. Governments were controlled by Kings and Leaders with the biggest and usually most ruthless armies. Families were controlled by men who possessed more strength than women. Even the Catholic Church turned into an organization controlled by the powerful. The Greeks and Romans dispersed some of this authority to more of their citizens, but government still boiled down to having those with power making most of the decisions and controlling those without power.
Early Americans had a better idea for allowing more freedom and individual choices. The American founding fathers (and mothers) said every human has certain rights that can't be taken away or abused by government. They said everyone has the right to freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), not just the humans with power. They believed every citizen in America should pursue their own objectives as long as those objectives did not interfere with the freedom of their co-citizens. Obviously, America never completely obtained this ideal, but it was still a noble idea.
I have come to realize there is no right way for me to make others do the things I want them to do or to make others pay for the things I want. (Thy shall not steal.) Therefore, my view of government is that government should protect it's citizens from force and fraud, but very little else. I believe government should be small and limited. Apparently, most Americans now believe more like the Greeks and Romans where the majority get to use the coercive force of government to get the minority to succumb.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
The Best I Could Hope For
Why would a Republican care if a Democrat is experienced, prepared, or competent, and why would a Democrat care if a Republican is experienced, prepared, or competent? Is someone who is accomplished in the functions of government we oppose better or worse for the country than someone unaccomplished in the functions of government we oppose? I think I would prefer an incompetent leader to a competent leader running government if government is trying to enforce laws I disagree with.
Like most beliefs being promoted by the Democratic Party, I don’t understand the attacks coming from Democrats against the experience and competence of Sarah Palin. However, as an opponent of the beliefs of the Democratic Party, if America is going to have a President from the Democratic Party, Barrack Obama is about the best I could hope for.
Like most beliefs being promoted by the Democratic Party, I don’t understand the attacks coming from Democrats against the experience and competence of Sarah Palin. However, as an opponent of the beliefs of the Democratic Party, if America is going to have a President from the Democratic Party, Barrack Obama is about the best I could hope for.
Monday, September 08, 2008
More Slavery
While we are on the subject of slavery, does it occur to anyone else, or just me, that National health care, like the Obama plan, is still another form of slavery where the young and healthy will be forced by law, to pay the bills of the old and unhealthy?
Thursday, September 04, 2008
No Taxation Without Representation
Many, if not most, American citizens who will be paying for my retirement have not even been born yet and won’t be voting for at least another 18 years. Not exactly the American way envisioned by our American founders.
Young and healthy taxpayers will be forced by the Federal government to pay for my well being in old age. Not exactly the end of slavery envisioned by Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists.
Young and healthy taxpayers will be forced by the Federal government to pay for my well being in old age. Not exactly the end of slavery envisioned by Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Making Matters Worse
The price of gasoline at the pump reflects the relationship between the supply of available gasoline and the demand for gasoline. Government intervention that lowers the price of gasoline without government intervention that also increases the supply of gasoline can only result in a shortage of available gasoline. Government intervention that reduces the profits for selling gasoline without government intervention that also reduces the demand for gasoline can also only result in a shortage of available gasoline.
Senator McCain wants to declare a holiday on gasoline taxes. Senator Obama wants to make oil companies pay a windfall profit tax on the excess (sic) profits from gasoline. Is it asking too much to ask for a serious Presidential candidate who understands that government intervention is causing the problem of gasoline shortages and higher prices, not leading to the solution of more gasoline and lower prices.
The market solution that will lower the price of gasoline is to allow existing oil companies to explore and drill in more places and for new competitors to enter the oil industry with the expectation of making an above average profit. More production of gasoline will lower the price of gasoline and meet the demand for gasoline.
Senator McCain wants to declare a holiday on gasoline taxes. Senator Obama wants to make oil companies pay a windfall profit tax on the excess (sic) profits from gasoline. Is it asking too much to ask for a serious Presidential candidate who understands that government intervention is causing the problem of gasoline shortages and higher prices, not leading to the solution of more gasoline and lower prices.
The market solution that will lower the price of gasoline is to allow existing oil companies to explore and drill in more places and for new competitors to enter the oil industry with the expectation of making an above average profit. More production of gasoline will lower the price of gasoline and meet the demand for gasoline.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Shall They Dance
Sun-Tzu, the Chinese General and military strategist circa 400 B.C. is attributed with being the first to say, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”.
I suspect Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will each be giving the words of General Sun-Tzu much consideration as long as they both remain in politics. Publicly, they will appear to be close friends, yet privately, they will always remain close enemies.
Barack Obama desperately needs the support of Hillary Clinton voters, but at the same time, he cannot appear to need Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton desperately wants to be President of the United States, but at the same time, she cannot appear to be a sore loser.
A Vice President Clinton would be closer and less of a pain in the rump to a President Obama than a Senator Clinton would be, but a Clinton on the ticket could add to the scandals sticking to Senator Obama.
The Vice Presidency could be a stepping stone to becoming President, but it isn’t a stepping stone Senator Clinton needs.
No matter what happens in the November election, expect lots of tap dancing from these two for years to come.
I suspect Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will each be giving the words of General Sun-Tzu much consideration as long as they both remain in politics. Publicly, they will appear to be close friends, yet privately, they will always remain close enemies.
Barack Obama desperately needs the support of Hillary Clinton voters, but at the same time, he cannot appear to need Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton desperately wants to be President of the United States, but at the same time, she cannot appear to be a sore loser.
A Vice President Clinton would be closer and less of a pain in the rump to a President Obama than a Senator Clinton would be, but a Clinton on the ticket could add to the scandals sticking to Senator Obama.
The Vice Presidency could be a stepping stone to becoming President, but it isn’t a stepping stone Senator Clinton needs.
No matter what happens in the November election, expect lots of tap dancing from these two for years to come.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The Road Less Traveled
The rising price of gasoline has made my commute to and from work much faster and much safer. “Faster” because there are fewer cars on the freeway during drive time hours and “safer” because traffic is moving at a steady pace instead of too slow or too fast.
For me, the higher price of gas is worth the time I am saving driving back and forth to work. I am getting better gas mileage and I am enjoying my commute more.
At some point, the gas market will adjust. Fewer drivers using gas or the same drivers using less gas is lowering the demand and higher profit for gas producers is increasing the supply. Additionally, employers will have to find ways to compensate employees for their higher cost of living caused by higher gas prices.
There will come a time when the freeways are congested again and the risk of accidents will increase again. For now, I will enjoy the high gas prices while it lasts.
For me, the higher price of gas is worth the time I am saving driving back and forth to work. I am getting better gas mileage and I am enjoying my commute more.
At some point, the gas market will adjust. Fewer drivers using gas or the same drivers using less gas is lowering the demand and higher profit for gas producers is increasing the supply. Additionally, employers will have to find ways to compensate employees for their higher cost of living caused by higher gas prices.
There will come a time when the freeways are congested again and the risk of accidents will increase again. For now, I will enjoy the high gas prices while it lasts.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
The Republican Soul
Has there ever been a major Presidential candidate more terminally constipated than Mitt Romney? If you answered Al Gore or John Kerry, you might be right, but do Republicans really want their own version of a poll-taking, script-reading, position-parsing, consultant-driven, image-building, hair-coloring, privileged-class pretzel of a candidate? Do Republicans really want a candidate who is capable of buying an election without ever demonstrating the willingness to fight for or finance any of the positions important to Republican voters? Apparently some Republican voters do, but so far, not most. Apparently almost all of talk radio does, but not me.
Character still matters to many Republican voters. We celebrate politicians who become life-protecting, tax-cutting, government-reducing, freedom-protecting, law-enforcing legislators, once they fight to reform government, not when they are trying to buy our vote in an election; especially a Presidential election.
The Republican Party is left with some very flawed candidates this Presidential election cycle. Our Party needs to be tweaked and our nominating process needs to be reformed before the next election cycle in 2012. This year we go to the general election with the candidate we’ve got. If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee, the positions of the two major Parties will be different, but the soul of the two major Parties will be the same. Is that what we really want?
Character still matters to many Republican voters. We celebrate politicians who become life-protecting, tax-cutting, government-reducing, freedom-protecting, law-enforcing legislators, once they fight to reform government, not when they are trying to buy our vote in an election; especially a Presidential election.
The Republican Party is left with some very flawed candidates this Presidential election cycle. Our Party needs to be tweaked and our nominating process needs to be reformed before the next election cycle in 2012. This year we go to the general election with the candidate we’ve got. If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee, the positions of the two major Parties will be different, but the soul of the two major Parties will be the same. Is that what we really want?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Freedom and Government
In order for the citizens of any country to experience freedom, the government of their country must be limited in scope and small in size.
Freedom is incompatible with big government. Government can be small in scope (limited), yet still be big enough to restrict freedom when resources are taken from tax payers and spent by bureaucrats. Very small government is also incompatible with freedom. Government must be large enough to protect the innocent without being so large it encumbers the freedom of its citizens.
In the following graph, freedom is assigned a value between 0 (No freedom) and 12 (Maximum freedom). Taxes are assigned a value between 0 (No taxes at all) and 100 (Every citizen turns their entire paycheck over to the government).
As long as tax revenue is collected and spent by the government in a way that prevents one citizen from preying on another citizen, the tax revenue collected will be used to ensure and increase freedom. Citizens are allowed to do whatever they want, suffer the consequences and enjoy the benefits of their freedom, just as long as they don’t impede on the freedom of others.
However, once tax revenue is used for any purpose other than the protection of freedom, citizens begin to have less freedom, regardless of the intentions or morality of the stated purpose. Every last penny taken by government and spent by government has reduced the amount of money available for the taxed citizen to freely spend and has most likely also created a restriction against a certain free choice by the tax payer.
Of course citizens of most modern countries do have a right to restrict the freedom of their fellow citizens, but let’s be clear what is happening when we allow government to borrow, tax, and spend; the majority is practicing tyranny over the minority.
Freedom is incompatible with big government. Government can be small in scope (limited), yet still be big enough to restrict freedom when resources are taken from tax payers and spent by bureaucrats. Very small government is also incompatible with freedom. Government must be large enough to protect the innocent without being so large it encumbers the freedom of its citizens.
In the following graph, freedom is assigned a value between 0 (No freedom) and 12 (Maximum freedom). Taxes are assigned a value between 0 (No taxes at all) and 100 (Every citizen turns their entire paycheck over to the government).
As long as tax revenue is collected and spent by the government in a way that prevents one citizen from preying on another citizen, the tax revenue collected will be used to ensure and increase freedom. Citizens are allowed to do whatever they want, suffer the consequences and enjoy the benefits of their freedom, just as long as they don’t impede on the freedom of others.
However, once tax revenue is used for any purpose other than the protection of freedom, citizens begin to have less freedom, regardless of the intentions or morality of the stated purpose. Every last penny taken by government and spent by government has reduced the amount of money available for the taxed citizen to freely spend and has most likely also created a restriction against a certain free choice by the tax payer.
Of course citizens of most modern countries do have a right to restrict the freedom of their fellow citizens, but let’s be clear what is happening when we allow government to borrow, tax, and spend; the majority is practicing tyranny over the minority.
Monday, January 21, 2008
They Left Me (and I do mean left)
The California Republican Party is encouraging voters to approve Propositions 94, 95, 96, & 97 to expand gaming revenues derived from casinos owned by four Indian tribes in California.
I have voted for Republicans since 1988 because I want to decrease the size, scope, and power of government, not because I don’t want to pay for big government. The funding of government is almost irrelevant, but the power of government is what needs to be limited and controlled.
By supporting these Propositions, California Republicans are saying the size of government is irrelevant, and all we should care about is the source of government spending. How pathetic.
One of Ronald Reagan’s most famous quotes is his statement that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. I know how he felt. The California Republican Party has left me.
I have voted for Republicans since 1988 because I want to decrease the size, scope, and power of government, not because I don’t want to pay for big government. The funding of government is almost irrelevant, but the power of government is what needs to be limited and controlled.
By supporting these Propositions, California Republicans are saying the size of government is irrelevant, and all we should care about is the source of government spending. How pathetic.
One of Ronald Reagan’s most famous quotes is his statement that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. I know how he felt. The California Republican Party has left me.
Self Serving and Biased Analysis
Way too many blog pundits, just like their predecessors and cousins in the traditional media, are making claims and predictions about the Presidential primaries based more on personal hunches than actual facts.
I find the political analysis of others to be interesting, but I don’t find very many pieces on the internet to be any more insightful than what I am hearing on talk radio, or reading in traditional media; which isn’t very insightful at all. The predictions and analysis by the experts has been consistently wrong since the 2006 elections.
At this point, all of the caucuses and primaries have amounted to nothing more than a pre-season where a few of the non-serious candidates have folded their tents and closed shop. The real season starts in Florida and then continues on Super Tuesday. On February 6th we will have plenty of facts to analyze. Until then, political punditry is merely speculation; nothing more. Most of the speculation is self serving or biased anyway.
I find the political analysis of others to be interesting, but I don’t find very many pieces on the internet to be any more insightful than what I am hearing on talk radio, or reading in traditional media; which isn’t very insightful at all. The predictions and analysis by the experts has been consistently wrong since the 2006 elections.
At this point, all of the caucuses and primaries have amounted to nothing more than a pre-season where a few of the non-serious candidates have folded their tents and closed shop. The real season starts in Florida and then continues on Super Tuesday. On February 6th we will have plenty of facts to analyze. Until then, political punditry is merely speculation; nothing more. Most of the speculation is self serving or biased anyway.
Anecdotal Irony
I was sitting in my reclining chair last night watching the third coldest football game in the history of the NFL on FOX feeling that perhaps the Global Warming zealots had suffered a serious blow to their religious beliefs when I decide to check CBS during a commercial time out. Apparently, the true believers at CBS just can’t be dissuaded by actual weather since they decided to air a rebroadcast of their show “The Age of Warming”. Did CBS get purchased by the Comedy Network when I wasn’t paying attention? You can’t make this stuff up. Even the fellow believers at NBC had to admit this morning on the Today Show that a larger percentage of the United States was below 10 degree Fahrenheit than ever before.
Of course anecdotal evidence like a football game in Green Bay in the middle of January doesn’t disprove the current theory of man-made Global Warming. However, anecdotal evidence like a retreating glacier in the Andes Mountains of Peru doesn’t prove the theory of man-made Global Warming either. Glaciers have expanded and retreated throughout History and always will. Football games in Green Bay in the middle of January have produced some great athletic spectacles throughout NFL history and always will.
Of course anecdotal evidence like a football game in Green Bay in the middle of January doesn’t disprove the current theory of man-made Global Warming. However, anecdotal evidence like a retreating glacier in the Andes Mountains of Peru doesn’t prove the theory of man-made Global Warming either. Glaciers have expanded and retreated throughout History and always will. Football games in Green Bay in the middle of January have produced some great athletic spectacles throughout NFL history and always will.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Déjà vu not named Hillary
I don’t want a President of the United States who will say and do whatever it takes to become President. A good President needs to have a soul and an ideology beyond getting elected.
Mitt Romney may have won the Michigan Primary last night, and he may have improved his chances for obtaining the Republican nomination, but he also may have revealed his true colors, and in effect, diminished his chances for the nomination.
It doesn’t matter how many times Romney is described as a true conservative by the conservative establishment, he still looks like Bill Clinton to me, and after his speeches in Michigan last week, I am beginning to think Romney and our former President are interchangeable. Both are professional panderers. Romney, just like former President Clinton, seems more concerned with getting elected than with advancing freedom and justice.
The term “conservative” may not mean the same thing to everyone, but if the term “conservative” doesn’t include the value of honesty, then I am not a conservative, true or otherwise. I suspect there are many other voters like myself who are finding Mitt Romney harder and harder to vote for because truthfulness is more important than being on the winning side.
Mitt Romney may have won the Michigan Primary last night, and he may have improved his chances for obtaining the Republican nomination, but he also may have revealed his true colors, and in effect, diminished his chances for the nomination.
It doesn’t matter how many times Romney is described as a true conservative by the conservative establishment, he still looks like Bill Clinton to me, and after his speeches in Michigan last week, I am beginning to think Romney and our former President are interchangeable. Both are professional panderers. Romney, just like former President Clinton, seems more concerned with getting elected than with advancing freedom and justice.
The term “conservative” may not mean the same thing to everyone, but if the term “conservative” doesn’t include the value of honesty, then I am not a conservative, true or otherwise. I suspect there are many other voters like myself who are finding Mitt Romney harder and harder to vote for because truthfulness is more important than being on the winning side.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
