Tag Archives: Conservative

Is There Hope For Conservatism?

Posted by Tim on

I love Thomas Sowell’s story about how he went from being a devout Marxist to a conservative. It didn’t happen during his economic studies, even after studying under Milton Friedman and George Stigler at the University of Chicago. Rather, it happened years later when Sowell landed a job in government and he realized that government just wasn’t capable of doing all of the things he wanted it to do. The level of incompetence, the amount of red tape, the incredible waste of tax payer dollars; all of this adds up and it just makes you shake your head and really think twice about letting the government get anywhere near your healthcare.

C33301-23But Sowell isn’t alone. There are countless great conservative, libertarian, and classical liberal minds that have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other – John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and (if I’m not mistaken) even Adam Smith, just to name a few. The transformation these men went through can be inspirational. A man who once thought the only way to achieve prosperity was through authoritarian rule (Locke) is now considered the father of classical liberalism.

Sowell’s story might offer a clue on how to get the message across to those who deem themselves liberal and consistently vote democrat, but occasionally, even if only by accident, agree with conservatives that government is just plain screwed up. If there was only a way to make them realize it! If we could just have them work in government for a month, maybe then they’d realize how messed up it is.

In times past, it was best selling books like Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged that got young people interested in the idea of liberty. Most recently it has been Texas Representative and Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul, who struck a chord with young voters, starting the “Ron Paul Revolution”. Even Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose 10 episode special that ran on PBS in 1980 gave uninformed Americans a basic overview of how the free market works.

Are there new up and coming people that can deliver the message of limited government, individual sovereignty, property rights, and personal liberty? As technology changes, so does the way people accept information. Long interview shows like William Buckley’s Firing Line, just aren’t what its about any more. Unfortunately, the yelling heads on Hannity or O’Reilly are what passes for conservative media. (Not that I have anything personal against Sean Hannity, but he’s no William Buckley or Russel Kirk. Just saying.)

There are other media outlets that are available. Talk radio, often seen as a safe-haven for conservative hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, is a growing medium for information. At a time when FM stations are rebranding, going online, or closing all together, AM radio, “news & talk”, is doing perfectly fine. This is simply because there is a demand for the product. People want to hear what Rush Limbaugh thinks. Not only is talk radio informative and entertaining, but it also offers listeners a chance for their own views and beliefs to be validated. “There are other people out there who feel the same way I do!”

Just as democrats have been trotting out celebrities to make their cause, conservatives should be doing the same. Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) is an outspoken libertarian. Other libertarian celebrities include Howard Stern, Drew Carrey, and Denis Leary. Not exactly what young people would think of when they hear “republican”. But this is also part of the problem. Too many people associate the GOP with Bush, McCain, and Romney. (It’s been said before – W Bush has done an enormous amount of harm to the republican party with his wild deficit spending. There’s no excuse for it.) It is up to conservatives to spread the word that the Republican party is the party of small government, lower taxes, and more freedom. This is a message the resonates.

Atlas Shrugged was turned into a 2 part movie. Ron Paul still sells best selling books. Even NBC’s Parks and Recreation pokes fun at the failures of government with the libertarian character, Ron Swanson. Is there hope for the future of liberty minded politics? One can only hope. On one hand, nothing is inevitable until it happens. Any law passed can be repealed. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a point of no return. Some already think we are past that point (Sowell, for instance), while others hold a more optimistic view.

I tend to think that an out of control central banking system, a fiat currency, a growing dependency class, schools ditching American history for “social studies”, and trillion dollar deficits will all lead us down a bad road. Even if things turn around, it will be painful, and it is at those times when politicians vote for the path of least resistance and kick the can down the road. If Americans continue to put their faith in politicians and government, there is no hope.

Political Lessons From 1 Samuel

Posted by Tim on

religion-politicsThey say that you should never discuss politics or religion in polite company. I’m not sure who said this, or exactly what they meant by it. (I know there’s an old Peanuts special that said something along those lines, though. The Great Pumpkin, I believe it was.) Why even have religion or politics if not to discuss? I love learning about politics and religion, but spreading the message is the true joy in these areas. I know when to hold my tongue and when to let loose, and it can occur in polite or less-than-polite company.

I’ll go ahead and break that rule, and also break another – don’t mix religion and politics. That would make sense if the two weren’t already amazingly intertwined. Although I’m no expert on theology, I do try to read the Bible regularly, and I do truly believe that the answers to all of life’s most difficult questions can be found in the Good Book. Not just what is right and wrong, but advice on the best ways to deal with people, and how to address different situations. Perhaps the biggest thing I’ve taken away from the Bible is that there is always more to learn, and some things will forever remain a mystery. There is a plan, but much of this plan is given to us on a “need-to-know” basis.

One pillar of conservatism that separates it from liberalism is how it views government. While liberals tend to welcome government, anticipating relief from problems of the world of scarcity in which we live, conservatives believe otherwise. Our view of the world is the tragic view – there are no solutions; only trade offs. Because no solutions exist, giving anyone power is a bad idea. As Lord Acton said over 100 years ago, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But warnings against government power have been around for ages, long before Acton spoke his famous line. Around 1100 BC, Samuel was judge over Israel, but when Samuel retires the people do not want another judge. Instead, they want a King – a ruler.

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.” (1 Samuel 8:4)

Samuel came to God with the request of Israel – to have a king. God, although unhappy with the request, granted it. But it came with a warning.

Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights. (1 Samuel 8:9)

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.” (1 Samuel 8:10-17)

These verses are a direct parallel to what happens in tyrannical countries around the world. Kings take children and use them for war. Notice that these children are put on chariots in front of the king’s chariots. The king doesn’t fight the battle – the soldiers do. Presidents and Congress don’t fight wars; instead they send young Americans around the world.

The king will take the fruits of your labor, the best of your fields, vineyards, and groves, and give them to his attendants. Sound like crony-capitalism at all? Sound like a president taxing some, and then giving it others – perhaps his own friends?

This post wouldn’t be complete without the most important line regarding kings.

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. (1 Samuel 8:6-7)

The reason people always want a king, a dictator, a leader, a ruler, is because they are lacking a king in another part of their lives. People need something to have faith in, something to tell them that everything will be okay, something to save them. When there is a lack of God, people turn to something else – government. As Americans reject God, they will cry out for a King.

Revisiting the Minimum Wage

Posted by Tim on

In case you couldn’t stomach watching this year’s State of the Union address by President Obama, let it be known that you didn’t miss much. The speech laid out some new proposals for new government programs such as nationalized pre-school, and sounded a lot like a campaign speech. Who would have guessed it? This guy has been campaigning for five years! Leading, on the other hand, is another issue entirely. In fact, near the end of the SOTU address, the President mentioned that he’ll soon be starting on his next tour to drum up public support for his new agenda.

obamaOne proposal he made has people talking once again about the minimum wage. Obama urged Congress to officially raise the federal minimum wage to $9/hour. As I’ve discussed before, the minimum wage law is really only a political tool. It does nothing to help, and much to hurt, those who work at the minimum wage. Before we get into why the law hurts the poor, perhaps we should revisit why the law exists in the first place.

The first “minimum wage” was passed during the Great Depression. Although it was touted by politicians as a way to help the poor, the real advocates behind the program were union bosses. Not just union bosses, but racist union bosses, who wished to keep blacks from undercutting their own workers. Here’s how it works -

  • An employer has a preference for white employees, but in the end will employ whoever works for the cheapest.
  • Black workers worked for the cheapest, and therefore, were hired over white union workers.
  • The minimum wage law made it illegal to hire a black worker for less than a white one.
  • Upon realizing that all workers cost the same, employers were allowed to go with their preferences, and hire white union workers.

The origins of the minimum wage law are as simple as that – unions looking to hurt their competition. But the law is always passed as if it was meant to help the poor. The problem is that wage laws are just another version of a price control. As supply and demand change, prices change accordingly. This allows the resource, whether it is wheat, housing, or labor, to be use most efficiently, and avoid shortages and surpluses – “economic equilibrium”. When supply and demand determine the price, it is referred to as the “competitive price”.

A price control sets the price either above or below the competitive price. Now, the competitive price doesn’t change; there is just a difference between the set price, and the competitive price. If the government price of a resource is set above the competitive price, this results in a surplus. If it is set below the competitive price, the result is a shortage. In the case of minimum wage laws, the price of labor is artificially raised, and therefore creates a surplus of labor. What do we call a surplus of labor? Unemployment.

The raising of the minimum wage will see an increase in unemployment. (Let’s not forget, that the real minimum wage is $0/hour.) It seems that people making these laws have little experience making budgets as well. (Congress hasn’t passed a budget in four years!) Businesses, on the other hand, need to make budgets, or they go out of business. Because wages are merely another cost to a business, they will respond accordingly in their budgets.

Let’s say a restaurant owner has a labor budget of $30/hour. With that $30 he is able to hire 4 workers, each at $7.25/hour. When the minimum wage is increased to $9/hour, and the owner is now over budget, and must make some adjustments. No longer will he employ 4 workers; instead he will employ 3, and just work them a little harder. The wages for 3 of those workers were increased, but one of those workers is out of a job.

The people who will be laid off as a result of the minimum wage laws are not people making $20/hour. The people who are laid off are people who worked for the prior minimum wage, but whose labor is not worth the new minimum wage. These are usually people with little education, little experience, and few options in the job market. The poor, the undereducated, the unexperienced – these are the people who have effectively been priced out of a job. Instead of working for a year, gaining experience and skills, and getting a raise later, they are now denied the opportunity to even acquire experience and skills.

Democrats and proponents of raising the minimum wage will speak of a “living wage” and of what people “deserve”. The problem with these kinds of phrases is that a “living wage” is different for different people. A “living wage” for me may be more than a “living wage” for someone else. Rent prices change, food prices change, gas prices change. The word “deserve” is equally deceptive. I think I deserve $100/hour – that doesn’t mean that my boss will pay me that. More than likely he’d laugh in my face if I demanded $100/hour. The market decides what people “deserve”, and this has no relation to what an arbitrary authority deems is a “living wage”.

At a time when unemployment is still high, (7.9% in January. Real unemployment is somewhere around 15%.) and at a time when our economy actually shrank last quarter, raising the minimum wage is a way to hurt the poor, and push people onto welfare, unemployment, and other government programs. There they will reside, and the gap between “rich” and “poor” will grow wider. Ever wonder why the “middle-class is disappearing”. Think big – think government.

Political Distractions

Posted by Tim on

Bronco Bama’s speech on gun control is over. Well… that was… unexciting. The event was hyped up by both liberals and conservatives. Over the past month, Joe Biden was set on a mission to come up with ideas on how to prevent mass shootings in the future. At the end of that month, he came up with 23 executive orders; ways Obama himself could make a difference. Its not exactly clear how any of these orders will do anything, but let’s be honest – that wasn’t the point.

obamashhThere are two main objectives in the gun control debate. The first is pretty straight forward – more gun control laws. Dianne Feinstein is salivating over reimplementing her “assault weapons” ban; a take-off of the 1994 legislation with a few new tweaks. The ban would of course ban weapons that have dangerous features such as carrying handles and telescoping stocks (because carrying handles kill people every day!), but would go further than the 1994 law. The ’94 ban applied to firearms with 2 or more of a list of features; the new ban applies to firearms with only one of these features.

The law is unlikely to pass, but there are a number of reasons for conservatives to be nervous. The biggest reason is because the leader of the opposition party (ie: the Republican party) is led by a moderate spineless wimp, John Boehner. Although Republicans hold a majority in the House, Boehner could very easily pull some of his colleagues into the back room, twist some arms, make some deals, and come out with something that liberals are happy with and conservatives hate; a gun control “compromise” that virtually forfeits the game to the Democrats.

I personally love how Obama dragged a few kids onto the stage with him. Just shows the lack of shame that this man feels – using children as political props. I laughed as he read those letters – thinking, “Oh God! This is what slimy politicians are made of! This man has it down to a science!” Of course, the letters from the kids are so vague that they’re completely meaningless. The president of the United States isn’t taking his cues from these “smart kids”; he’s using them to pull on a few people’s heart strings. Lucky for me – I’m a conservative, and therefore, I have no heart (or so I’m told).

The second objective of the gun control debate is this: to keep people’s eyes off the ball. While politicians, the media, and the American people are paying attention to a debate about “assault weapons”, and “gun violence”, (have you noticed that they’ve changed the wording from “gun control” to “gun violence”? Same thing they did by changing “global warming” to “climate control”) we’re edging nearer and nearer to the debt ceiling, and soon enough, it’ll be time to raise it.

Obama loves to push bills through quickly so that people don’t have time to debate them and not even elected officials have time to read them. If the debt ceiling debate started 3 months ago, then there would be no urgency; people would have time to talk about the pros and cons of such legislation. To make the issue more urgent, Obama is pushing off talking about the debt ceiling until the second before we hit it. This will create plenty of commotion, panic, and cries from the media to “do something”.

I love Rand Paul’s suggestion to pass a law stating that for every 20 pages in a bill, one day is allowed to read it. Imagine how much time that would have given the public to learn about Obamacare before it passed, or how much time we’d have to learn about the monstrous Dodd-Frank bill before it passed, or the new gun control bill that is soon to be brought forth. Could there be a way to ensure that politicians read the bills they vote on? Would that be too much to ask?

The whole charade today was nothing more than a political stunt meant to give the American people the impression that the President “cares” and that he’s “doing something”. His objectives have little to do with saving lives, and much to do with advancing his own political agenda. Anyone who knows anything about DC politics saw right through this phony press event; nothing more than a distraction, taking eyes off the elephant in the room – the government is out of money!

The Road to Serfdom

Posted by Tim on

Have you seen your latest paycheck yet? Most people see a check once every two weeks, some people once a week, and some people once a month. By this time, however, most Americans (working Americans, I should say) have noticed something different about their income. Even after the “fiscal cliff” was averted, the taxes of just about everybody went up. You don’t make $450,000, or even $250,000? What? You thought that raising “taxes on the rich” didn’t mean you?

taxesThe fact is, that while many of the tax rates were extended, everybody’s payroll taxes increased. This means that the “FICA” deduction has gone up – for most people about a 50% increase. Now, that increase may only be from roughly 4% to 6%, but that can be $50 that a family needs to buy groceries or fill up their minivan’s gas tank. These aren’t taxes “on the rich”; these are taxes on the middle class – the working class. While I myself am paying higher taxes, I do take pleasure in seeing how many people are shocked that their taxes went up too.

It is a common economic fallacy that government can tax individuals or groups. Government sets different rates for different income levels, different deductions for different organizations, and various loopholes for “crony-capitalists”, just to give the impression that they can tax different people at different rates. This allows smug politicians of both parties to use tax rates as a political weapon in the ever going battle we call “class warfare”.

By promising to raise taxes on the “rich”, politicians win votes from envious constituents. By promising to lower taxes on “businesses” they invite votes (and money) from the corporate elites around the country. A flat-tax would hurt both parties because they would need to focus less on tax-rates as a means to political gains, and more on actual policy. Policy is what both parties lack, and they are dead afraid of the American people realizing it. As long as the “progressive” tax rates are in place, however, the American people will remain distracted by class warfare.

Its too bad, really, because the tax rates Americans should be paying attention to are not just their own individual rates, but the rate that the economy as a whole is paying. For instance, up until the 1930s, the federal government spent roughly 3% of GDP. Today, the Feds consume 25% of GDP. Having this giant, bloated, inefficient government certainly isn’t going to help get our economy going! Whoever that 25% comes from, it ultimately comes from YOU.

Economics is a social science, studying the economic interactions between individuals. Taxing one person will always have an effect on someone else. If a rich person is taxed at a higher rate, that means not only the he writes a bigger check to the government, but also that he doesn’t write a check to a car dealer. This is turn means that the car dealer is taxed, the car salesman is taxed, the car manufacturer is taxed, and countless other people are taxed – the people in the steel mill who produce the materials to build the car, the people who make the tires for the new car, and on and on.

Therefore, even if only one person is taxed directly, everyone is taxed in the end. The point is not to look at who writes the check to the government, but who pays for it. Because wealth is very liquid, there are plenty of ways for the rich to avoid paying taxes – they can send their money to a Swiss bank account, for instance. In the meantime, however, plenty of people will be hurt because that money is in Switzerland, not America. These are the people that pay the taxes in the end.

Maybe it is all worth it, though. The government has bills to pay, and someone needs to pay up. Let it be YOU, the American people. Let’s be honest – you voted for it. You voted for Medicare, for Medicaid, for Social Security, and for Obamacare. These massive entitlement programs will wreck the American economy by saddling us with more debt than is imaginable. The unfunded liabilities of these programs (not even including Obamacare) run up to $86.8 trillion. That’s right – $86.8 trillion. Try to think of how much that is… try.

hayekContinuous trillion dollar deficits will bankrupt America, continuous class warfare spewed from mouths of the political elite will distract enough of us in the meantime, and all the while our President is seizing power not given to him in the Constitution; threatening to use executive power to raise the debt ceiling, as well as sidestep the 2nd amendment. Does anyone realize that these are not the actions of a President, but rather of a dictator?

Nah, Democratic California Representitive Jackie Speier says, “I urged him to do as much by executive order as possible. Frankly, I don’t have a lot of confidence that this Congress is going to do anything significant.” Right, so since that whole “separation of powers” thing really gets in the way of “progress”, let’s just forget about it and hand over more power to a single authority. This reminds me of one of my favorite excerpts from F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom:

Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure.

People are getting tired of the stalemate in Washington, and they are beginning to believe that “if things are to get done” (ie: gun control, raising the debt ceiling, immigration reform, etc) then the authorities (Obama) should be “freed from the fetters of democratic procedure” (ie: the legislative process). It is happening right before our eyes. We are on the road to serfdom.

2016 Republicans

Posted by Tim on

Is it too soon to start talking about Republican presidential hopefuls for 2016? I mean, we all pretty much know that Bill is pushing Hillary to run for President, and that’s she’s almost guaranteed to win, so why not put together a list of some potential candidate for the Republicans. The good news is that in the last few years we’ve at least gotten rid of a few moderates  - John McCain and Mitt Romney won’t be running again. Mike Huckabee most likely won’t be running either. There were a number of good potential candidates that people were pushing for in 2011/2012 that were just “too young in politics” to go for the big seat. But in another 4 years that could change.

Chris Christie

Chris Christie

Potential #1 – New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. I’m not personally a huge fan of his. In my opinion he is still too moderate to run for the Republican presidential nomination. His only real claim to fame is that he went toe-to-toe with the teacher’s union in New Jersey and won. That’s great – it shows he has some kind of a backbone. On the other hand, he’s also in favor of cap and trade, and refused to sign onto the lawsuit against Obamacare. After hugging Obama right before the election in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Christie really rubbed a lot of Republicans the wrong way. However, his speaking skills, and New Jersey tough-guy personality could make him a real contender.

Potential #2 – Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Once again, I’m not a huge fan of his. Although he certainly talks a good game, in recent weeks he’s been playing the role of a typical establishment Republican; working to kick conservatives off committees if they don’t support his bills. Although he hasn’t had the strongest record for cutting spending, he is one of only a handful of Republicans to offer a solution to the Medicare crisis that is still unsolved. When Romney chose Ryan as his VP pick in 2012, it basically secured Ryan’s seat on a national level, if he should so chose. Star power.

Potential #3 – Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Although Santorum didn’t win the nomination, he did amazingly well considering that he had virtually no money, no campaign, and no name. He won more states than any other candidate (other than Romney, of course). In my heart I believe that if Romney hadn’t outspent Santorum 50-1 in numerous states, Santorum could very well be President. With Romney out of the way, and Santorum having national recognition, he could take one more run at the Republican nomination. He now has the name, the money, the campaign, and in the grand scheme of things he’s still a pretty young guy. Unfortunately, he still has a record as a big-spender neo-conservative. His strong social conservatism may be able to tie him over.

Potential #4 – Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Sean Hannity was extremely persistant in trying to get Rubio to run in 2011/2012, and then very hopeful that Romney would pick Rubio as his VP. Neither happened, but this time around he could run. He has the name (being a favorite of Hannity, as well as radio giants Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin), and a solid record. He’s a Tea Party candidate, is a minority, and has a great story to tell about his family coming to America from Cuba. He’s also young, good looking, a good speaker, all the essentials. He’s definitely someone I could throw my support behind.

Rand Paul

Rand Paul

Potential #5 – Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Being the son of Ron Paul, Rand could easily pick up 5% of the vote automatically from the very loyal Ron Paul crowd. He has the Tea Party, limited government, libertarian, true conservative team on his side. He’s also young, is unique in that he has “cool” stances on legalizing drugs, and has stood up strong against the Republican establishment. He’s also the only name making noise about NDAA – the power of government to detain its own citizens indefinitely. His only negative may be that he sort of “sold out” when he endorsed Mitt Romney over his own father in 2012. This left a sour taste with some Ron Paul supporters. That aside, Rand is someone I’d really love to see on the big stage.

Potential #6 – Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Daniels was among those who many thought might get into the 2012 race but never did. He is still popular with conservatives. He’s enacted a state-wide school voucher program, put in place fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and ended state funding for Planned Parenthood. Personally, I think he looks like a typical Republican from Washington, and these days looks matter. It would be nice for him to run and influence that race in one way or another.

Potential #7 – South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. Republicans do seem to have better looking women than Democrats, right? Nikki Haley gave a great speech at the RNC Convention and was received very well by the party. She’s got a number of thing going for her that the GOP needs – she might be able to get more female voters, and she might be able to get more minority voters. In South Carolina she won with the most minority votes in SC history. She’s also a good speaker, is a Tea Party candidate, and has a good record as governor.

Potential #8 – Former Florida Congressman Allen West. Although West only lasted a single term in Florida, the real reason he lost was because he was massively outspent and was depicted as someone who wanted to end Social Security and Medicare; two things that kill a candidate in Florida. Listening to West talk though, you’d never know it. Recent interviews with West still show him as calm, confident, and intelligent. When this guy talks, he doesn’t miss a beat! Being a veteran could certainly help him win people over who want a smaller government, but still a strong defense. They can be confident that he won’t hollow out America’s armed forces.

Potential #9 – Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Say it aint so! I know, he wouldn’t be my pick either. And having to chose between another Clinton and another Bush could yield the lowest voter turnouts in history. However, there are people pushing for Jeb, (W’s younger brother) to make a run in 2016. He’s supposedly a better speaker than his brother (but what does that mean?) and more conservative than his brother (again, what does that mean?). For me, I don’t want another Bush – too moderate, too much bad history with the family, and just…. ugh. No! With the likes of Karl Rove behind him, though, the neo-cons could make a comeback.

Scott Walker

Scott Walker

Potential #10 – Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Walker made international news when he stripped bargaining privileges from public unions. He stood his ground and Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years. He turned a $3 billion deficit into a $300 million surplus. He’s one of the only politicians to ever actually do what he said. Concealed carry, voter ID, ended state funding for Planned Parenthood, the list goes on. He’s not an amazing speaker, but his popularity with both the Tea Party and the GOP could make him a prime contender.

Right now, I feel like the Democrats have already picked their candidate, and that the Republicans have a lot of potential. There are still more names out there that could make a run – Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Condoleezza Rice, and others. Only time will tell, but one sure thing is that the stage will be filled with big names.

Celebrities and Gun Control

Posted by Tim on

Thomas Sowell explained in an interview on the Hoover Institution’s Uncommon Knowledge that knowledge is dispersed very widely. We are all experts within a small field, but one step outside of that field and we are completely lost. Although Sowell was referring more specifically to those he calls “intellectuals” (masters of linguistics who assume they know anything about economics, for instance), the same can be said for Hollywood elites. Celebrities tend to really overplay their influence on the American people. I can’t say for sure, but it seems that celebrities really believe that their opinions actually matter.

The new “Demand a Plan” crusade is out and about. The first YouTube video put forth is a series of celebrities, ranging from Conan O’Brien to Courtney Cox, saying that there has been too much killing, and enough is enough. It is time to do something, and demand a plan from the government to curb mass shootings. Virginia Tech, the Oak Creek Sikh temple, Aurora movie theater, and of course, the Sandy Hook elementary school – we need to “do” something.

The commercial itself doesn’t give any real plan for action, but the website does. “We can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will: 1. Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America, 2. Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines and, 3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime including real penalties for “straw purchasers”.” The website doesn’t include information on how any of this legislation would actually reduce crime, but hey – humor me.

1. “Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America.” This is pretty much already the case. Anytime I’ve bought a gun, whether its from a straight up gun shop or a hunting store, I’ve filled out a form, shown my ID, and had someone run a background check on me. If I was a felon, then they’d stop the transaction right there. I cannot buy a weapon without a background check as it is. Sounds like #1 is already taken care of, right?

Not exactly. There are people who may give a gun as a gift to their children, or to a friend. If I’m in need of cash, I might call someone and say, “Hey, want to buy my gun?” Unfortunately, there is virtually no legislation that would effectively regulate these transactions. It would be like trying to regulate the sale of used college textbooks. Good luck with that.

guns2. Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yes! Because “assault weapons” aren’t mechanically the same as any hunting rifle? Banning assault weapons is a cry made by people who don’t know the difference between what they call an “assault weapon” and what our military uses. Automatic weapons (like those that our military uses) have been banned since the 1930s. No mass shooting has used an automatic weapon since 1982.

The assault weapons they are talking about are not a problem, they just look mean. When there was an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 the authors of the bill, Diane Feinstein and others, literally went through a gun magazine and pointed at things that they didn’t like. If it didn’t look like a hunting rifle or ordinary handgun, it went on their “list”. Banning a weapon based on looks is foolishness.

3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime including real penalties for “straw purchasers”. In case you aren’t familiar, a straw purchaser is someone who buys a gun but knows beforehand that he’s just going to give it to someone else. The forms that people fill out already have a check box saying “Are you the actual purchaser of this firearm”. When people check “yes” they are saying that they are not buying it for someone else. Penalties for being a straw purchaser are already up to a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. Sounds pretty tough to me.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a real way to prove that someone is buying a gun for someone else. Once it is out of the store, who knows what they do with it? They bought it legally, registered it, haven’t committed a crime – are police supposed to begin checking everyone’s home and asking “I need to make sure you still have the guns that are registered to you.” Police have enough on their plates, I seriously doubt they want to be wandering around the streets asking people to show them their guns.

The problem with these types of laws is that they will have largely no effect on the criminals who are the main cause of violent crime. Celebrities can talk all they want about mass shootings, but the biggest victims of gun crime are young minorities in urban settings. These are the guns that need to be taken off the streets, and they are in the hands of people who need to be taken off the streets. Gangsters and drug dealers are the main culprit  when it comes to gun related homicides.

If “gun trafficking” is something we could cut down on by passing new laws, then drug trafficking would be down as well. If these liberal celebrities really want to punish gun traffickers, then look no further than Barack Obama himself – selling thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, many of which have been used to kill innocent Mexicans and even a US border patrol officer. With such a crummy example being set by the man in the oval office, why should criminals behave any differently?

Pat yourselves on the back, Hollywood. You’ve done nothing, but at least you feel good about yourself. A horrific killing happened, and for a moment, they were in the news, not you. So, to put yourselves back in the spotlight, you make a video demanding new gun control laws. Be an actor, be a comedian, be a musician, be a talk show host – but don’t pretend to know anything about the gun control issue.

Recommended Reading (12/9/12)

Posted by Tim on

end the fedIt’s been a while since I’ve put forth a “Recommended Reading” post, so to make up for that, I’m recommending two books this time. No worries though, they’re both short, easy reads, and they’re actually authored by the same man – Ron Paul. Ah! Right? Not exactly what you may expect from me, being that Ron is more libertarian than I am, and I tend to disagree with him on foreign policy. That being said, Ron Paul was always fun to watch during the debates, and the man’s integrity is unquestionable. He’ll gladly be the only person in Congress to say “No” to a bill that he doesn’t approve of. Ron Paul is a man of principle.

Although he has written a number of great books, I’ve personally only read his more recent titles - The Revolution: A Manifesto, and End the Fed. Both books are less than 200 pages, and are very easy to read. The Revolution talks primarily about Ron’s positions on big issues, be it federal spending, war, or economic liberty. He also introduces readers to the real problems with having a fiat currency, one that isn’t backed by gold, and one that is operated by a single power – the Federal Reserve System.

By the end of the book, I found that I liked Ron Paul more than I thought. Although I don’t agree with everything he said, I at least had to respect him for knowing what he believed and why he believed it. So many other politicians change their views over the years, trying to pander to this group or that group. Not Ron Paul, however. His positions have been the same for decades, and his beliefs never changed because of unpopularity or peer pressure.

End the Fed goes still deeper into the issue of sound money, and I feel that it is essential reading for any conservative/libertarian who wants to gain a basic understanding of America’s money system. When the housing bubble burst, everyone in Washington was pointing fingers, but few people were pointing them where they belonged. It wasn’t “greed’s fault” that there was a bubble – the market doesn’t allow for bad transactions, no matter the motive. The bubble was created because government interfered with the market, and allowed greed to make bad transactions. The market is self-regulating, and government intervention only disturbs and distorts this regulation.

End the Fed also includes a few conversations Ron has had with Fed Chairmen Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. It is fun to read the conversations that must have driven Bernanke and Greenspan nuts. Sometimes Ron Paul was the only person to question the actions of the Fed. He was a constant thorn in their side.

Both of these books give a great taste of just who Ron Paul is and what he believes. You don’t have to agree with everything said in these books, but it is important to learn from people you may disagree with. Ron Paul helped launch the Tea Party movement, helped bring big issues to the forefront of the Republican party, and helped move the party away from moderate wimps towards Constitutional Conservatism.

The Walker Agenda

Posted by Tim on

Immediately following Mitt Romney’s somewhat expected loss to Bronco Bama in November, I started looking forward to future of politics, government, and our nation in general. It will be 2 years before another national election is held, but what needs to happen in the meantime?

walkerIn April, Wisconsin will hold a Supreme Court election. This is important because just about every law signed by Governor Scott Walker is taken up in court, and it is important to have a conservative majority. Republicans already overwhelmingly are going along with Walker’s agenda – no mushy moderates are holding him back. Republicans own the House, Senate, and of course the Governorship, so there’s no legislative road blocks. And for the time being, the Wisconsin court has a conservative majority.

It is vitally important to keep it that way. Walker’s agenda for the coming 2 years includes getting a mining bill passed. The iron mining in northern Wisconsin could be a economic godsend; thousands of great paying jobs ($80,000+ a year), plus all the businesses that are helped in those surrounding communities. Also – a lot of the equipment that is used in these mining operations is made here in Wisconsin. Taking advantage of Wisconsin’s natural resources is a no-brainer, but there are always angry environmental leftists that fight against such progress.

There is also whispering around town about turning Wisconsin into a “right-to-work” state. This would mean that no union could force people to be members just to hold a job. For instance, a mining workers union could form once these mining bills are passed. Typically, the union would say, “If you want to work at this mine, you have to join our union.” This will no longer be allowed. People can still join unions, but they can no longer be forced to join.

Experience has shown that right-to-work states attract lots of new businesses. Wisconsin is surrounded by lefty states like Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota. If Wisconsin passed right-to-work legislation, it could become the best place to do business in the midwest, pulling in money from the surrounding areas. Couple this with the fact that Scott Walker will NOT be creating a state exchange program, and Wisconsin is becoming very attractive to new businesses.

Voter ID bills are a constant struggle around the country, and Wisconsin is no exception. The bill has already been taken up in court, and will likely end up before the state Supreme Court, where conservative justices will be very important. Voter fraud is rampant in this state. Madison, for instance, actually had more people vote than are registered! Racine polling stations had vans with Illinois license plates dropping off loads of people. Where are these people coming from? Out of state!

Ending same day registration alone would be a great help to stopping voter fraud. People can wander across the state border, register with a fake address, not show an ID, and have their vote counted. By the time people realize that the person doesn’t actually live where they said they lived, the election is over. In elections where only a thousand ballots determine winners and losers, this can mean the difference between someone getting elected fairly, and someone else stealing the election.

Despite national politics being a complete mess, (with all the so-called “fiscal cliff” nonsense) I’m thankful to live in Wisconsin. Even though Wisconsin’s electoral votes went to Bronco Bama, we still are very much a red state. The same election that delivered votes to Bama also allowed Republicans to regain a majority in the state Senate. Scott Walker, along with his allies in the legislature are really something for conservative Wisconsinites to be happy about.

Don’t Be Fooled By Polls

Posted by Tim on

It seems like every time I turn on the news, no matter what channel it is, I hear the same thing. Obama has a lead over Romney, and how could this be? With the economy in shambles and another recession right around the corner; with high unemployment and a workforce that is shrinking with every jobs report; with more people dependent on government handouts and more people on food stamps than ever before, how is Obama winning in the polls?

These news casters, the talking heads and idiotic pundits, inevitably put negative thoughts in the heads of people who ask me the same question – how is Obama winning, and does Romney have a chance? I’m here with good news for the Romney team, good news for Republicans, and bad news for people wandering around with their hands constantly stretched out, waiting for someone to pay their way.

Most polls are very deceptive off the bat. Most people do not realize that these polls almost always ask more Democrats than Republicans who they’ll be voting for. If 13% more Democrats answer a poll, it only makes sense that the poll shows Obama winning. The bright light becomes visible when we realize that even though 13% more Democrats took a poll, the results only show Obama winning by 7%. If we were to even things out, that same poll may show an even result, or perhaps a Romney lead.

The polls can also be deceptive when they show Obama leads among “registered” voters. The voters that count are not registered voters, they are “likely” voters. It doesn’t matter if someone “likes” or “dislikes” Obama’s record on the economy. The only thing that matters is if that person is going to vote for or against Obama in November. Many polls are done on registered voters, not likely voters, but are averaged in as if they have the same meaning. They don’t, so don’t be fooled.

There is a lot of history to show that Obama will lose. If we look back in time, with the exception of FDR, no president has been reelected with an unemployment rate over 8%. The US unemployment rate currently sits at 8.3%, and if we add in people who have just given up looking for work, and people who are underemployed, that rate looks much worse. The REAL unemployment rate is somewhere around 15%.

People like to claim that the Clinton years were a period of great growth, often forgetting the measures set in place 10 years earlier by Ronald Reagan. None the less, the 90s are still seen as a fairly good time, and many people attribute that to Bill Clinton. When Obama begins running his campaign based on Bill Clinton’s record, rather than his own; when Obama commercials feature Bill Clinton instead of Obama; and when Bill Clinton draws more excitement and gives a better speech at the DNC, things are NOT looking good for Obama, and he knows it.

Ronald Reagan was losing in the polls until two weeks before his election against sitting president Jimmy Carter. Reagan ended up winning in a landslide, and did so again in the 1984 elections. Polls today are not used to depict the voice of the people. Rather, they are used to change the voice of the people. No one wants to support a loser, so pollsters who are in Obama’s pocket will continue to tout Obama as a clear winner, hoping that this will cause people to see Romney as a weak candidate and as Obama as the “inevitable” champion.

Polls mean next to nothing today, and they won’t until a couple of weeks before the election. We are still weeks away from the election, haven’t seen a single debate yet, and have only seen the tip of the iceberg as far as campaign advertising goes. The battle is far from over, and the best chapters are yet to come. Do not be discouraged by these negative polls. Keep working on Romney’s behalf; talk to your friends and coworkers; put up a Romney sign in your yard and a Romney sticker on your car or truck; make a campaign contribution. With more people working on our side than in 2008, and fewer people working on his side than 2008, 2012 is sure to be a change. Not the kind of “change” that Obama wants, though.