The Republican party, currently America’s “opposition” party, has an interesting journey ahead of it. The GOP is at a crossroads. One path take the party towards the Republican establishment; moderate Washington elites. The other takes the party to middle America; the Tea Party, conservaties, and libertarians. One journey is set to be led by George W Bush advisor, Karl Rove. The other is to be led by no one. Just as there is no “leader” of the Tea Party, there is no leader of the movement to kick GOP pretty-boys out of office and replace them with constitutional conservatives.
If there was any leader behind the Tea Party, perhaps it would be one of the politicians who was elected because of the Tea Party. Take your pick – Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Allen West, or countless others. These are not just the run of the mill Republican politicians. Rather, these are men carrying a message from the American people. Government growth needs to be stopped and reversed. Men who have been in office for a mere two years – Rubio and Paul, are already becoming the leaders of their party in the Senate, with or without the official title of “Minority Leader”.
Compare these office holders with the Republican establishment; politicians the likes of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Eric Cantor. Can anyone name a time when these politicians actually stood for something? Was there ever a moment when their constituents said, “Way to go, Boehner!”, the way Kentuckians support Rand Paul, the way Floridians support Marco Rubio, or the way Wisconsinites support their Governor, Scott Walker? The strength of the party, the balls of the party, reside not with the career politicians who are more concerned with keeping their jobs than with the national debt, but with the Tea Party and the grassroots conservative movement.
But after the latest round of elections, which delivered Barack Obama another 4 years in office, as well as a Democrat majority in the Senate, Karl Rove is upset. The “architect” (as he likes to be called) was among those quietly pulling for Mitt Romney during the 2011-2012 Republican primaries. Low and behold, the candidate who was seen by most Republicans as “moderate”, lost against Obama. The problem to begin with was that Romney didn’t connect with people. I often make the remark that Romney acted as if he was made of wood – bland, boring, a Massachusetts moderate. But with millions of dollars in campaign money, both from his own war chest as well as the backing of the Republican establishment, Romney bulldozed his way past Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
Months later, the news came – Obama won the election. Why, if Mitt Romney could not beat John McCain in 2008, and if John McCain could not beat Obama in 2008, did people believe that Mitt Romney could beat Obama in 2012? How many more Bob Doles, John McCains, and Mitt Romneys will have to lose before Republicans realize that moderates do not necessarily attract “independent” and “swing” voters? The last landslide election for a Republican came in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide, and then did so again in 1984.
The Republicans who opposed Reagan in the 1976 and 1980 Republican primaries are the same ones who oppose Tea Party candidates today. The “Grand Old Party” is just that – old. The American people are seeking something different from Barack Obama, but Mitt Romney didn’t really offer that. He made no play for evangelical voters. He made no play for Tea Party voters. He made no play for gun owners. Romney’s message was simple – Obama is failing on the economy, and I’m a rich businessman, so I must know more than he does. Is this an emotional argument that is going to get people out to vote in droves? The polls say tell the story.
The Republican party is up for grabs. Either it will go the way of moderate Republican establishment hacks like Karl Rove (who, by the way, LOST the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000. Some “architect”!), or it can go the way of the Tea Party. Think of the candidates that both teams have put forth – Mitch McConnell vs Rand Paul. John Boehner vs Marco Rubio. After elections are over, who would you trust more to get the country back on track?
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?
The 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.
Continuous 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I often laugh when people get upset about things that haven’t happened yet. Just a couple weeks ago I had people approaching me with negative thoughts – Romney was losing in the polls, and there was no way around it; Obama was going to win. Low and behold, only two debates later, and Romney is winning by 5 points in a number of key battle ground states. Don’t be fooled by polls though. Many of these polls are designed not to show public opinion, but to affect it. Romney is winning now, but the battle is not over.
Tomorrow night’s debate will likely be very different from the first time Mitt and Barry met on the big stage. Obama suffered a hard loss the first time, and was perhaps taken back by Romney’s hard words. While Romney spoke Obama would hang his head in shame. When Romney mentioned poor jobs numbers, and other sad economic statistics, Obama would actually nod his head! The media who had been in Barry’s corner for the last four years had done him a true disservice. He was out of action for so long; so far away from any real criticism. Romney woke up the sleeping marxist.
Now that Romney has Barry’s attention, this debate is sure to be quite different than the first. Immediately following the first debate, PMSNBC’s host of Hardball, Chris Matthews, went on a rant about Obama “letting” Romney get away with “lies”. And of course, why didn’t Obama use his secret weapon – reference to the 47% comment? It is almost an absolute – Obama will use the 47% to his advantage this time around.
It may be too little, too late, however. In the weeks that have passed since Romney’s comment was first brought forward by the left-wing media, he has had time to prepare a defense for it. Romney will likely be able to turn that comment around and perhaps remind America of Obama’s comments about middle America – people who cling to their guns and Bibles. The fact is that Obama is not quick on his feet, especially when he has such a lousy record to run on. Although I expect Barry to score more points than last time, I still expect another Romney debate victory.
I’m more sure than ever that Romney will be revealed as the winner on the night of November 6th. Obama’s fan base shows a lack of enthusiasm, Romney’s is off the charts. Even conservatives who weren’t completely sold on him during the Republican primaries are standing with him. The long enduring primary debates certainly allowed him to hone his debate skills and learn what works. The more conservative opponents pushed Romney to the right, to the point where he currently draws a good contrast with the President.
The question now, is no longer will Romney win or lose, but will he win by a hair or by a landslide. If recent Wisconsin politics are a sign of anything, I think we can count on the first Reagan landslide of the 21st century.
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.
People often say that the politicians in Washington don’t listen to the people. They are too disconnected with their constituents. The very people who put them in office have no idea what they are doing until the next election. One of the problems is that each of these politicians represents too many people. If you ever try to call your Representative or Senator, there is a pretty good chance you’ll just talk with one of their assistants. And even at a town hall meeting you’ll be lucky to get a question in, and even luckier if you get a straight answer.
On the other hand, our local politicians are easy to work with. I know my State Senator and Representative. I even have their phone numbers saved in my phone, and when I call they talk with me. One of them actually gave me his home number, and a few years ago was walking the neighborhoods himself knocking on doors. My representative is my neighbor, and if I have a real problem with something he does, I can wander over a few blocks and have a word with him myself.
This is the natural of politics. The people in Washington serve too many interests, and are kept far away from the effects of their policies. They are, by nature, disconnected. Local officials are just that – local. This is the beauty behind federalism, and the genius behind the Constitution. The bozos in Washington aren’t supposed to be passing the laws that effect our day-to-day lives. Those laws are supposed to be passed by our local politicians.
The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that any powers not given to the federal government in the Constitution are not theirs to exercise. They of course do have some powers – regulating interstate commerce, regulating international trade, providing for the nation’s defense, and collecting taxes to pay for these duties. But that’s pretty much it.
The politicians in Washington have no Constitutional reason to be interfering with our schools, our healthcare, our drug policies, or our environment. Those duties are to be left to the states or to individual citizens. And there is good reason for this. The federal government only passes big blanket laws for all 50 states. But who is to say that what is good for someone in South Carolina is also good for someone in Colorado? But that’s just what happens. A Congressperson from a single state will put forth a bill that has benefits for his own state, but that will hurt someone else’s.
This is obviously a terrible thing. We have people from different sides of the country deciding whats best for each other, and no one is looking out for the people in between. If these crooks would read and listen to the Constitution, they’d realize that the laws they are voting on don’t have any Constitutional standing, but that doesn’t happen. Special interests, labor unions, and plenty of people with their hands out, all make donations; either with their ballot or their checkbook. Its sad, and very disheartening.
The only thing set up to stop this kind of behavior is the Constitution, the document that all politicians swear to uphold. But if everyone is breaking the rules, nobody notices. Little by little, States’ rights are disappearing, individuals have less liberty to make decisions in their own lives, and our so-called Republic shifts away from the ideas of the founders towards a top-down centralized all-powerful federal government. Is there any hope? Not really.
With Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan, Republicans are in a great mood. But everyone forgot about Ryan’s real record. As a fellow blogger points out, Ryan voted FOR TARP, FOR the auto bailout, FOR the 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages, FOR Head Start and No Child Left Behind, FOR extending unemployment, and FOR the Patriot Act. Why is everyone so gung-ho about Paul Ryan? He’s no conservative, and even with the Ryan Budget we still increase spending!
He can talk a good talk, and help Romney win, but both of these guys believe in the power of the federal government. Spending will keep spiraling out of control. Everyone is happy that instead of being thrown off a cliff, we’ll be nudged off a cliff. Not good enough for me. We don’t need to slow down, we need to turn around! My only hope is that these guys will delay the dive overboard long enough to get a Constitutional Conservative in office. Rand Paul? Are your ears burning?
The 60s are thought of as an era of progressivism – the hippies, the anti-war crowd, the civil rights movement. The 80s were of course seen as a decade of strong conservatism. Reagan owned the White House and ran America well; by lowering taxes he raised revenue which he used to build up our military into the most powerful Army on the planet, which hadn’t been the case since a few years after WWII. But if we go back a into the 60s, we see that what Reagan capitalized on was started 20 years earlier.
In 1960, Arizona Senator, Barry Goldwater, wrote his timeless classic, The Conscience of a Conservative. At the time, Goldwater was one of the only true conservatives in the Senate. He gave the guidelines of how to get America back on track. At the time we were a nation weakened tremendously by the days of the New Deal. People were being taxed as high as 90%. Government was growing and spending recklessly. The way back was to embrace the US Constitution and let the free market work.
Goldwater explains the problems with labor unions. He explains problems with the federal government encroaching on state’s rights. He spends considerable time talking about America’s foreign policy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Showing strength and consistency are extremely important, and aiding the allies we have over the enemies we’d like to turn into friends is vital. Above all – our leaders must not be naive when dealing with people who do not intend to be our friends, and are only looking to destroy us.
Goldwater also makes the case for less taxation. People do not work to serve the government, and the government ought to live within its means. Our money is used most wisely when we use it ourselves, not when the federal government spends it for us. Furthermore, the programs that government spends it money on are often destructive – welfare in particular. There is nothing moral about taking by force from X to give to Y. Charity is best left to individuals, private organizations, and churches.
The principles that Goldwater taught – liberty, limited government, constitutionalism, individualism, and the free market – have impacted countless conservative politicians for decades. Goldwater’s book led him to an unsuccessful presidential run in 1964, but 16 years later, Ronald Reagan would apply his teachings and change America forever.
The Wisconsin US Senate race is in full swing right now. The Democrats are sticking to their strategy of running Tammy Baldwin against whoever the Republican nominee will be. Although Baldwin is a far left whacko from Madison, she is semi-known and will have all the support of Wisconsin’s liberal media. Does she have a chance? In my opinion, no. Wisconsin is on such a role for conservatism, I doubt she’ll beat her opponent, no matter who he is.
The Republican nominees are four strong candidates, any of whom would make a fantastic Senator. Each candidate has their issues, and here’s how I’ve been breaking it down thus far. Tommy Thompson is a former Governor of Wisconsin. With that title, he earns the top seat as far as popularity goes, and a Thompson vs Baldwin ticket would be an very easy win. Unfortunately, when we take a look into Tommy’s past, he’s not the most conservative candidate. He was a moderate (at best) governor, and when he left to work for the Bush administration in 2000, he managed to help Bush throw on tons of debt.
Mark Neumann is a former Republican representative, and he has a strong backbone when it comes to issues. He’s a proud conservative, a private businessman, and has a good record to run on. But in the last 2 elections he’s lost. He’s kind of seen as a loser at this point, someone who cannot capture the attention of independents or Democrats. He also really ticked a lot of people off when he badmouthed his opponent for Governor – Scott Walker, thereby giving Walker the victory. As much as I like Neumann, he may need to work on his politics.
Jeff Fitzgerald… honestly, I don’t know where he is! I don’t see TV ads for him. I don’t hear radio ads for him. I haven’t gotten any phone calls from his campaign asking for my support. He is far behind in the race, and I’m about ready to count him out. Not just because he lacks publicity, but because I don’t know anything about him. As a voter, I shouldn’t need to dig through Google to find out about someone. Fitzgerald should be pandering to me. Since he hasn’t, I don’t know where he stands on the issues, and he’s at the far back of my mind.
Eric Hovde is a private sector businessman, who was unknown up until a few months ago. A good thing about candidates having money is that they can basically bankroll themselves and not need to do a lot of fundraising. Hovde has hit the ground running with nonstop TV and radio ads. Not only are there a lot of ads, but the ads are compelling. Hovde’s campaign is doing a great job thus far. He comes off as the real deal, and he is the only person who is really in the running, other than Thompson.
The choice is set – Thompson or Hovde… Moderate politician, or Conservative businessman? I have to go with my gut and give my support to Hovde. Wisconsin needs another Ron Johnson – someone from outside politics who is willing to make the tough decisions of our time. With Thompson’s history as a spender and grower of government, I cannot give him my support. Of course, if he wins the nomination I’ll vote for him over Baldwin, but now is the time to pick the person who will make the best Senator for Wisconsin – Eric Hovde.
Today has been a busy day in Washington DC. Not only was Eric Holder officially held in Contempt of Congress for withholding documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, but Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, the so-called “Affordable Care Act”, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. For the time being, let’s put Holder aside and focus on the big one – Obamacare.
The entire law rested on whether an individual mandate was constitutional. Does the federal government have the power to punish someone for not buying a product or service – in this case health insurance. The argument was made that because Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce, that they also have the power to regulate that people buy health insurance. Fortunately, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to compel an individual to enter into a private contract with an insurance company. Congress can regulate insurance, but if someone doesn’t buy it – they cannot do anything. The individual mandate was struck down.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Instead of deeming the law unconstitutional, the law was upheld by changing a few words and a few definitions. Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that the mandate was in fact not a mandate, but a tax. In this case – Congress still has the power to tax whoever it choses. The problem with this is that it is in fact NOT a tax, nor was it ever presented as such. President Obama even went out of his way on multiple occasions to specifically say – this is not a tax. In the law its a mandate, in the court its a tax. Roberts overstepped his bounds by changing the very law he was judging. The law stands.
A lot of people are still confused about what this all means. In short it means that in 2014 every citizen must buy health insurance or face a penalty fee of roughly $700. You can buy your insurance on your own, from your employer, or you can just pay the penalty and forget about providing insurance for yourself. In the end, businesses across America will drop their health insurance because the penalties are cheaper than the insurance. People will be left to fend for themselves.
There are a number of cost exploders included in the bill – popular items such as 26 year olds being allowed on their parents insurance, and people not being turned down for coverage due to pre-existing conditions. As great as this may sound, these both force up costs of insurance. At the same time, Obamacare prevents insurance companies from raising their rates. If they can’t charge more, and they are forced to cover more people…. they go out of business. This was the plan all along.
With private insurance companies out of business, America’s healthcare system will become “single payer”. There will be one “insurance company” – the federal government. Every citizen will be on the same plan. No competition, utterly inefficient, and guess what is to come. As with every other single payer system in the world – rationing. Certain types of medicine and certain procedures will not be covered. Who decides what is covered and what isn’t? The infamous Death Panel - a small group of bureaucrats who decide which patients are worth keeping alive.
Scary, no doubt. This piece of legislation is the largest tax increase in American history. It severs any sense of State or individual sovereignty. The federal government will continue to grow larger and larger, delivering less of what it is obligated to (defense, secure borders) and more of what it should stay away from (government-run education, banks, energy, and healthcare). The history of government is tyranny. Every country has seen it. Government always grows and it’s end is always the same – it traps its citizens and treats them like subjects.
There is hope, however. Now more than ever, we need Mitt Romney. I hate relying on one person to turn around the fate of our country, but frankly – Mitt Romney needs to win in November. Along with Romney as our president, we’ll need a Republican controlled Senate. History shows us the path we are going down, and it isn’t a good one. I repeat – the history of government is tyranny. To keep a government from becoming tyrannical we need to shrink it and control it, so it doesn’t control us. The hope lies in delivering Wisconsin to Mitt Romney in November, as well as delivering an additional Republican Senator to Washington.