All we hear about these days is the "fiscal cliff" - if something is not done before the end of the year $500 billion in tax increases and spending cuts effective January 2nd will send the economy into another recession. I think the average American has their head in the sand; we have already gone off the fiscal cliff and are now in a financial "abyss". If we are smart (not probable with our political leaders) we might be able to climb out of the abyss and possibly get back to the edge of the cliff before we go bankrupt. If that can be done we would at least have a chance to get the country moving in the right direction again.
Here are some simple statistics:
- Our annual spending deficit is over $1 trillion. If the country goes "over the cliff", then spending and new taxes will reduce the deficit by $500 billion annually, while still leaving a $500 billion deficit. So by the end of the Obama's four years the national debt will still INCREASE to $18 trillion.
- And that is just the tip of the iceberg. According to the experts the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security, and pension funds/health care premiums for federal employees total $87 trillion...I'll repeat that - $87 trillion. It makes our present $16 trillion debt seem like we are rolling in dough.
Sadly most Americans have no idea what an "unfunded liability" is, and most don't care. But the truth is that this country is hopelessly in debt as a result of decades of financial mismanagement by politicians from both sides, who are more interested in getting reelected that telling their constituents the truth.
The election of Obama was stunning in that the majority voted for "more of the same". Obama can't take all the blame for this country's financial demise, but he certainly gets the lion's share since the national debt increase under him has totaled more than all the Presidents before him.
I believe that people voted for Obama for one of two reasons; they have no idea what financial trouble this country is in and voted the democratic party line, OR they know the country is in financial trouble and because they are getting "free stuff" (welfare, food stamps, extended unemployment, disability, subsidized housing, etc.), their self-interest trumps their sense of responsibility to the country, i.e. they want to get their free stuff as long as it's available.
Whatever the solution of this financial "abyss" turns out to be, it will require pain, affecting every American. That is the only sure prediction for the future.
Someone recently said that the situation is so far gone that 'policy" cannot change things at this point, especially with a socialistic administration in power. They contend that an "event" will be the only thing that will get the country back on track (if that is possible). That event could be the devaluation and collapse of the dollar, hyper-inflation, or possibly the financial default of the US government. Sooner or later the money will just run out, the printing presses at the Fed will be worthless, and those people lending us 40 % of every dollar we spend will finally say "no mas".
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
"Gridlock Redux?"
If you are a Liberal, you are happy today.
If you are a Conservative, like me, you are not only unhappy, but stunned that a majority of Americans could vote to keep the country on the same downward track of the last four years. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess left by George Bush and he rode the "blame Bush" pony for the past four years. And it worked, since in exit polls more of his voters believed the economic problems in this country were due to Bush and not Obama. If he tries to continue to ride that pony the next four years, I don't think even his hard core supporters will buy it.
So the pressure is on for him to make something out of his presidency these next four years, and that means somehow to become a "leader" - a quality missing in his first term. Last night and this morning both he and Harry Reid, leader of the Senate, have said: "We need to start working together". Where were they the last four years?
I give credit to the Obama campaign. Whether or not you believe they used dirty Chicago politics, they won. Painting Romney as a rich guy that could not relate to the average Joe, or that he would set women's rights back a century, or that he would make sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, was all smoke but it worked. The whole strategy was to attack Romney while never discussing Obama's past performance or his future plans. His support from the main stream media certainly was a factor. And with millions of Americans receiving some sort of government support (welfare, disability, food stamps, unemployment, subsidized housing, free cell phone, etc.), who do you think they voted for? But election campaigns are about winning, and they pulled it off. Congratulations to them.
Some say the election was a "mandate", so ironically the pressure is all on Obama this next term. The Republican House retained their majority and almost all of the Conservative Tea Party members were re-elected, so they also have their mandate. It therefore falls on the President to pull these sides together and accomplish something. After all isn't that what leadership is all about? I don't think most Americans will accept the "blame game" the next four years, and his main stream media friends may not either.
If you are a Conservative, like me, you are not only unhappy, but stunned that a majority of Americans could vote to keep the country on the same downward track of the last four years. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess left by George Bush and he rode the "blame Bush" pony for the past four years. And it worked, since in exit polls more of his voters believed the economic problems in this country were due to Bush and not Obama. If he tries to continue to ride that pony the next four years, I don't think even his hard core supporters will buy it.
So the pressure is on for him to make something out of his presidency these next four years, and that means somehow to become a "leader" - a quality missing in his first term. Last night and this morning both he and Harry Reid, leader of the Senate, have said: "We need to start working together". Where were they the last four years?
I give credit to the Obama campaign. Whether or not you believe they used dirty Chicago politics, they won. Painting Romney as a rich guy that could not relate to the average Joe, or that he would set women's rights back a century, or that he would make sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, was all smoke but it worked. The whole strategy was to attack Romney while never discussing Obama's past performance or his future plans. His support from the main stream media certainly was a factor. And with millions of Americans receiving some sort of government support (welfare, disability, food stamps, unemployment, subsidized housing, free cell phone, etc.), who do you think they voted for? But election campaigns are about winning, and they pulled it off. Congratulations to them.
Some say the election was a "mandate", so ironically the pressure is all on Obama this next term. The Republican House retained their majority and almost all of the Conservative Tea Party members were re-elected, so they also have their mandate. It therefore falls on the President to pull these sides together and accomplish something. After all isn't that what leadership is all about? I don't think most Americans will accept the "blame game" the next four years, and his main stream media friends may not either.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
'Crunchtime"
In seven days we will elect a new President and the country will either embark on a new path or continue on its present path which is a downward spiral toward becoming a European style Social Democracy. If Barack Obama is re-elected in my opinion we will not recognize this country in four years and the new "norms" will be:
- Over 7% unemployment on a permanent basis with a significant segment of the employed in low paying jobs.
- Upwards of 50% of the country on some sort of government support (welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps, etc.)
- An increase in taxes across-the-board to pay for government programs and to service the country's enormous debt.
- 2% or less annual economic growth.
- For those buying their own medical insurance, premiums will skyrocket and those receiving insurance from their company will either see it cancelled or their company contribution toward insurance increased dramatically.
- $4:00 + gasoline on a permanent basis.
- The stock market will crash again and the USA could default on their loan payments.
- The Mid-East will go up in flames.
- The European Union will start to break up with the possibility of Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy going bankrupt or defaulting on their bond payments.
OK...this is a "doomsday" scenario, but it's my Blog so I get to give my opinion. One thing is for sure, Barack Obama has been a failure as President and as a world leader.
A friend of mine predicts Obama will get 340+ electoral votes in a landslide election. It's true that the incumbent has a distinct advantage, especially with a crooked Chicago political machine behind him. I suspect at this point 99% of voters have made up their mind, so the election has probably been determined and we will see the result next Tuesday.
But I must travel in a "Republican bubble". If I think about the top 100 people in my life - family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances that I have regular contact with, I can count the people I know will vote for Obama on one hand...and I live in liberal California.
I'm not going to let my optimistic nature set me up for a big disappointment next Tuesday, but I think my friend is dead wrong. This country cannot be that stupid. If Mitt Romney wins and Republicans end up with at least 50 seats in the Senate it will be celebration time, and repeal of Obamacare will be the first order of business.
If Obama wins, I will accept the people's choice and as the French say: "Take life as it falls at your feet".
- Over 7% unemployment on a permanent basis with a significant segment of the employed in low paying jobs.
- Upwards of 50% of the country on some sort of government support (welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps, etc.)
- An increase in taxes across-the-board to pay for government programs and to service the country's enormous debt.
- 2% or less annual economic growth.
- For those buying their own medical insurance, premiums will skyrocket and those receiving insurance from their company will either see it cancelled or their company contribution toward insurance increased dramatically.
- $4:00 + gasoline on a permanent basis.
- The stock market will crash again and the USA could default on their loan payments.
- The Mid-East will go up in flames.
- The European Union will start to break up with the possibility of Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy going bankrupt or defaulting on their bond payments.
OK...this is a "doomsday" scenario, but it's my Blog so I get to give my opinion. One thing is for sure, Barack Obama has been a failure as President and as a world leader.
A friend of mine predicts Obama will get 340+ electoral votes in a landslide election. It's true that the incumbent has a distinct advantage, especially with a crooked Chicago political machine behind him. I suspect at this point 99% of voters have made up their mind, so the election has probably been determined and we will see the result next Tuesday.
But I must travel in a "Republican bubble". If I think about the top 100 people in my life - family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances that I have regular contact with, I can count the people I know will vote for Obama on one hand...and I live in liberal California.
I'm not going to let my optimistic nature set me up for a big disappointment next Tuesday, but I think my friend is dead wrong. This country cannot be that stupid. If Mitt Romney wins and Republicans end up with at least 50 seats in the Senate it will be celebration time, and repeal of Obamacare will be the first order of business.
If Obama wins, I will accept the people's choice and as the French say: "Take life as it falls at your feet".
Friday, September 21, 2012
"The Man with the Golden Voice"
I don't like Barack Obama.
I don't hate him, in fact from what I hear he is a very nice person, good husband, and father. But I don't like what he has done to this country. The economy is in ruins, the USA has become a debtor nation, almost 50% of our population is receiving government support of some kind, 23 million are unemployed or underemployed, the world is in chaos, and this country's citizens are more divided than any period in my lifetime.
These are very complex problems; Obama did inherit a crashing economy but he also proceeded to make it worse; the $16 trillion that has made us a "debtor nation" is the responsibility of both political parties but Obama "threw gasoline on the debt fire"; most of the unemployed or underemployed sincerely want to work - but there are no jobs; the chaos in the world is not due to a stupid video - it is due to stupid foreign policy by both political parties, and I cannot remember when we were so hated around the world. So with such a complex array of problems what is the solution?
This country needs a leader.
Is Romney that person? I don't know, but Obama has proven he is not that person, so maybe we need to make a change. Clint Eastwood put it very well at the republican convention: "If he is not up to the job, we need to let him go".
I don't hate him, in fact from what I hear he is a very nice person, good husband, and father. But I don't like what he has done to this country. The economy is in ruins, the USA has become a debtor nation, almost 50% of our population is receiving government support of some kind, 23 million are unemployed or underemployed, the world is in chaos, and this country's citizens are more divided than any period in my lifetime.
These are very complex problems; Obama did inherit a crashing economy but he also proceeded to make it worse; the $16 trillion that has made us a "debtor nation" is the responsibility of both political parties but Obama "threw gasoline on the debt fire"; most of the unemployed or underemployed sincerely want to work - but there are no jobs; the chaos in the world is not due to a stupid video - it is due to stupid foreign policy by both political parties, and I cannot remember when we were so hated around the world. So with such a complex array of problems what is the solution?
This country needs a leader.
Is Romney that person? I don't know, but Obama has proven he is not that person, so maybe we need to make a change. Clint Eastwood put it very well at the republican convention: "If he is not up to the job, we need to let him go".
Thursday, September 13, 2012
"Sanity vs the Fed"
The Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent, I am beginning to wonder. In addition to Obama's stimulus of almost $900 billion, in the past few years the Federal Reserve has had two rounds of "quantitative easing", yet nothing has changed in the economy. Quantitative easing is a fancy name for printing money to buy government bonds so the government can pump more money into the economy. During the past several years the Fed has "printed" almost a trillion dollars, unfortunately the stimulus and none of this quantitative easing has had any effect; the poor economy is the same as it was two years ago.
Although the Fed is supposed to be "independent", today they announced a third round of "quantitative easing" to help the economy, I am beginning to wonder if this isn't political. The fed will start "printing" money and buy $40 billion in US bonds every month until the economy "begins improving". This is a farce and in my opinion purely political less than 60 days before the election.
Between the media, the unions, the entertainment industry, and now the Fed, there is a full scale effort to get Obama re-elected. It didn't help the Republicans when Romney said if he was elected he would fire Bernanke the Chairman of the Fed.
Most people don't even understand what the Fed is, I didn't myself when I was younger. Currency is only useful if it can maintain its ability to act as a temporary storage vehicle for wealth, and be exchanged for a good or service. So the Fed "supposedly" was established to make sure banks were honest, the economy was stabilized, etc. That is a sham.
Printing unlimited money destroys the value and usefulness of currency and can be a precursor of hyperinflation. I am not a fan of Ron Paul but he is right; "The Fed should be abolished and we should go back to the gold standard".
This is such a confusing issue most Americans ignore it (like many readers of this Blog will probably do). But here is the bottom line - when the Fed simply prints money out of thin air your buying power is reduced - it's called inflation and sooner or later when you pay $10 for a gallon of gas or $10 for a loaf of bread you will understand that when the Fed "creates" money we all lose, and ironically the middle and lower classes lose the most - the "folks" the Democrats claim to protect. .
Although the Fed is supposed to be "independent", today they announced a third round of "quantitative easing" to help the economy, I am beginning to wonder if this isn't political. The fed will start "printing" money and buy $40 billion in US bonds every month until the economy "begins improving". This is a farce and in my opinion purely political less than 60 days before the election.
Between the media, the unions, the entertainment industry, and now the Fed, there is a full scale effort to get Obama re-elected. It didn't help the Republicans when Romney said if he was elected he would fire Bernanke the Chairman of the Fed.
Most people don't even understand what the Fed is, I didn't myself when I was younger. Currency is only useful if it can maintain its ability to act as a temporary storage vehicle for wealth, and be exchanged for a good or service. So the Fed "supposedly" was established to make sure banks were honest, the economy was stabilized, etc. That is a sham.
Printing unlimited money destroys the value and usefulness of currency and can be a precursor of hyperinflation. I am not a fan of Ron Paul but he is right; "The Fed should be abolished and we should go back to the gold standard".
This is such a confusing issue most Americans ignore it (like many readers of this Blog will probably do). But here is the bottom line - when the Fed simply prints money out of thin air your buying power is reduced - it's called inflation and sooner or later when you pay $10 for a gallon of gas or $10 for a loaf of bread you will understand that when the Fed "creates" money we all lose, and ironically the middle and lower classes lose the most - the "folks" the Democrats claim to protect. .
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
The "War on Women" and other BS
It's Convention time - enthusiastic delegates with colorful hats, hours of tedious votes to elect the nominee, and speeches...and speeches...and speeches.
The Republicans have it easy; talk about Obama's performance - over 8 %
unemployment for 3 ½ years, 23 million unemployed or
underemployed, a federal debt
approaching $16 trillion, massive new government regulations, and 100 million
receiving some form of government assistance (not including Medicare and Social
Security). And...Obamacare; a socialized medical system a majority of
Americans do not want. Now the Republican's job is to convince voters how they plan to solve these problems.
Republicans will be bringing out their top guns for key speeches - John Kasic, Scott Walker, Bob McDonald, Condaleeza Rice, Chris Christy, Marco Rubio, Mrs Romney talking about the personal side of her husband, and of course Paul Ryan, and then Mitt Romney will make his speech introducing himself to the country. This will be politics in full bloom and for those of us that are political junkies, worth watching.
The Democrats don't have it so easy; do they get up and brag about their performance the past 3 1/2 years? I don't think so. But they don't have to introduce their candidate; everyone knows Barack Obama and his messianic rise to the presidency. He also has a Vice President that has provided more material for talk show hosts and late night comedians than any politician in history. So by now they are both well known to all Americans.
With such a poor record what can be the theme of their convention? "Smoke and mirrors", diversion, and fear: "Republicans will repeal Obamacare, they will end Medicare, they will 'deregulate' the environment resulting in dirty air and water, they will cut social programs like welfare and food stamps, they will make abortion illegal, they will lower taxes on the rich, etc., etc." We have heard these talking points before, and they DO work for a segment of the voters,
Democrats believe a key voting demographic for Obama are women, and their convention will focus on the Republican's so-called "War on Women". Speakers will include NARAL president Andrea Miller to remind us of women's right to choose, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards to remind everyone how much Republicans hate women. And then they will bring in the "big guns" - Sandra Fluke, the 30 year old graduate student activist who achieved her 15 minutes of fame by demanding the government pay her $10/month bill for birth control pills. She would have been a 'nobody' had not Rush Limbaugh (with his audience of 23 million), made fun of her and now she speaks at the Democratic Convention. And after her, another heavy weight - Eva Longoria, formally a "Desperate Housewife" and now a stalwart democratic operative. Where do the Democrats get this talent?
So we have two weeks of political posturing, then two months of what will be a tidal wave of television ads, personal attacks, debates and then the election on November 6th.
When Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter in 1979 many of us can remember the sad state of affairs due to the socialistic policies of the Carter administration. During the final debate Reagan asked this question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Many thought it was the turning point in that election.
And here we are in a similar, and even more serious situation. Maybe in the final debate Romney should ask: "Is this country better off now than it was four years ago?"
I believe we all know the answer to that question.
When Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter in 1979 many of us can remember the sad state of affairs due to the socialistic policies of the Carter administration. During the final debate Reagan asked this question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Many thought it was the turning point in that election.
And here we are in a similar, and even more serious situation. Maybe in the final debate Romney should ask: "Is this country better off now than it was four years ago?"
I believe we all know the answer to that question.
Friday, July 13, 2012
"The Entitlement Time-Bomb"
For those that follow the situation in Europe, it could be a preview of what the future will look like here in the USA. Last year it was riots in Greece when the government ran out of money and after two bailouts from the European Union, could not borrow any more. So deficits had to be reduced; "entitlements" were cut and citizens rioted by attacking police, destroying property, and even burning down a bank (killing two people that were inside). Many experts believe Greece is still going to need more financial bailouts.
Now it is happening in Spain. The country's banks need a $130 billion dollar bailout and as part of that payment the European Union requires that they make major cuts in their spending to reduce future deficits. So yesterday the Prime Minister announced major cuts in entitlements and tax increases. Here are just a few of the austerity measures:
- The Value Added Tax (VAT) has been increased to 21% (in simple terms; buy a $30,000 car and the sales tax is $6300).
- Government worker's annual salaries will be cut 7%. BUT, here is how absurd the "entitlement" mentality can get. Until now government employees in Spain received 14 monthly paychecks per year - 12 regular paychecks plus an extra monthly paycheck at Christmas and one at vacation time. So they received two "free" monthly paychecks per year. The 7% "cut" is the Christmas "free check" being eliminated - they will still get the free check at vacation time.
- Now if unemployed in Spain you will only get 60% of your salary for the first 6 months, then it will drop to 50%. I don't know how long you can receive unemployment in Spain, but from my many travels in Europe it can be years.
And so they are rioting in Spain.
If you give a child, or even the family dog, "treats" on a regular basis, once they are used to it, it is almost impossible to walk it back. Grownups are the same. Throughout the world for years politicians have been promising their constituents "treats" just to get votes, without any regard for how the free stuff will be paid for.
This is a world-wide problem from top to bottom:
- USA: $16 trillion in debt and deficit rising at the rate of $1 trillion per year; 8.2% unemployment and payments increased from 26 to 99 weeks; 42 million on food stamps and the government advertising for more people to apply; in June 85,000 workers left the workforce to collect disability (more than jobs created), and in three years, regardless of age they will all qualify for Medicare.
- Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and probably France all nearing insolvency.
- California, a $16 billion deficit this year, almost twice the forecast, and at least 10 other states with similar financial problems.
- Stockton, San Bernardino, Scranton, filing bankruptcy recently and some experts predict upwards of 100 cities in the USA close to insolvency.
Like Greece, sooner or later there will not be any money to pay these entitlements and no one will lend any more money or buy bonds from these countries, states, or cities.
The fuse on the entitlement time-bomb has been lit. In the words of that great philosopher Reverend Jeremiah Wright: "The chickens have come home to roost".
Now it is happening in Spain. The country's banks need a $130 billion dollar bailout and as part of that payment the European Union requires that they make major cuts in their spending to reduce future deficits. So yesterday the Prime Minister announced major cuts in entitlements and tax increases. Here are just a few of the austerity measures:
- The Value Added Tax (VAT) has been increased to 21% (in simple terms; buy a $30,000 car and the sales tax is $6300).
- Government worker's annual salaries will be cut 7%. BUT, here is how absurd the "entitlement" mentality can get. Until now government employees in Spain received 14 monthly paychecks per year - 12 regular paychecks plus an extra monthly paycheck at Christmas and one at vacation time. So they received two "free" monthly paychecks per year. The 7% "cut" is the Christmas "free check" being eliminated - they will still get the free check at vacation time.
- Now if unemployed in Spain you will only get 60% of your salary for the first 6 months, then it will drop to 50%. I don't know how long you can receive unemployment in Spain, but from my many travels in Europe it can be years.
And so they are rioting in Spain.
If you give a child, or even the family dog, "treats" on a regular basis, once they are used to it, it is almost impossible to walk it back. Grownups are the same. Throughout the world for years politicians have been promising their constituents "treats" just to get votes, without any regard for how the free stuff will be paid for.
This is a world-wide problem from top to bottom:
- USA: $16 trillion in debt and deficit rising at the rate of $1 trillion per year; 8.2% unemployment and payments increased from 26 to 99 weeks; 42 million on food stamps and the government advertising for more people to apply; in June 85,000 workers left the workforce to collect disability (more than jobs created), and in three years, regardless of age they will all qualify for Medicare.
- Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and probably France all nearing insolvency.
- California, a $16 billion deficit this year, almost twice the forecast, and at least 10 other states with similar financial problems.
- Stockton, San Bernardino, Scranton, filing bankruptcy recently and some experts predict upwards of 100 cities in the USA close to insolvency.
Like Greece, sooner or later there will not be any money to pay these entitlements and no one will lend any more money or buy bonds from these countries, states, or cities.
The fuse on the entitlement time-bomb has been lit. In the words of that great philosopher Reverend Jeremiah Wright: "The chickens have come home to roost".
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
"The Elephant in the Room"
This week Stockton, a California city of 300,000, will most likely declare bankruptcy. After reducing their budget $90 million the past few years through drastic cuts, the city is still facing a budget deficit for the coming year of $26 million. The situation is hopeless...they are simply out of money. This is after they have eliminated one-fourth of the city's police officers, one-third of
the fire staff, and 40 percent of all other employees. And they also cut
wages as much as 22%, along with cuts in medical benefits for city workers. The economy, especially the housing crash has had a significant effect, but the major problem is pension and medical commitments for retired workers - in Stockton for every policeman on the beat, there are two receiving large pensions for life.
Stockton is a microcosm of what is happening in the state of California; in many other states; in the USA; and in many countries around the world. This week Spain and the island of Cyprus became the fourth and fifth countries to ask for a bailout from the Euro zone and many believe Italy may be next and then France. If that happens the European Union will collapse because there simply will not be enough money for bailouts and there will be no buyers for these country's bonds.
Political leaders around the world blame this massive debt on the economy, which is only partially true. The "elephant in the room" throughout this debt carnage is the massive entitlements promised by politicians - promises to get votes, but promises that cannot be kept. Incredibly, the new socialist Prime Minister of France was elected because he promised MORE entitlements including reducing the retirement age to 60.
It is frustrating that most people, here and around the world pay little attention to the national debts. They don't understand it, and as long as they get their "entitlement" they simply believe government is an endless supply of money.
Stockton, during their bankruptcy, can void some of their pension and other union contracts and possibly work their way through the problem. But with the USA facing a $16 trillion debt which is rising at a rate of a trillion dollars a year, it may not matter which party is in control. The time is coming when the debt may be in control because "USA bankruptcy" will not be an option.
Stockton is a microcosm of what is happening in the state of California; in many other states; in the USA; and in many countries around the world. This week Spain and the island of Cyprus became the fourth and fifth countries to ask for a bailout from the Euro zone and many believe Italy may be next and then France. If that happens the European Union will collapse because there simply will not be enough money for bailouts and there will be no buyers for these country's bonds.
Political leaders around the world blame this massive debt on the economy, which is only partially true. The "elephant in the room" throughout this debt carnage is the massive entitlements promised by politicians - promises to get votes, but promises that cannot be kept. Incredibly, the new socialist Prime Minister of France was elected because he promised MORE entitlements including reducing the retirement age to 60.
It is frustrating that most people, here and around the world pay little attention to the national debts. They don't understand it, and as long as they get their "entitlement" they simply believe government is an endless supply of money.
Stockton, during their bankruptcy, can void some of their pension and other union contracts and possibly work their way through the problem. But with the USA facing a $16 trillion debt which is rising at a rate of a trillion dollars a year, it may not matter which party is in control. The time is coming when the debt may be in control because "USA bankruptcy" will not be an option.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
"The Harbinger"
har·bin·ger : A person or thing that announces or signals the approach of another event.
All this week we have heard from the liberal media that the Wisconsin recall election was "to close to call". But it was not. It was a blowout for the governor who took on the union bosses and it looks like he won big. He was polled to be ahead by 3% (within the margin of error) yet he won by close to 10%. Wisconsin spent almost 20 million dollars on this ridiculous recall election and it wasn't even close. Bill "Bubba" Clinton came in at the last minute to try and help pull out a win and Obama even added his support with a "Tweet" supporting the democratic challenger...what a guy.But the important message here is that the American people are fed up with unions and their ridiculous pensions and benefits breaking the back of state and local budgets. Keep in mind that after Governor Walker eliminated collective bargaining and gave state employees the choice of union membership, more than 50% dropped out of their union with their "mandated" dues.
This is more than a state election; it is a harbinger of things to come. I believe Americans both Republican, Independents, and moderate Democrats are fed up with debt and union protected government employees getting preferential pension and benefit treatment compared to private employees; pensions and benefits that are breaking the back of local, state, and federal budgets.
The Obama administration will tell us in the next few days that this was a "local" election and has no national significance. But I bet they are circling the wagons tonight and wondering WTF happened.
Friday, June 1, 2012
"Revenge of the Nerds"
"Revenge of the Nerds" - a silly movie, but in a way it is being played out in real life.
I was an engineering major in college, and anyone who majored in science will tell you it is a lot of work. In my case, I was also working full time and trying to raise a family, but even full time engineering students will tell you there is little time for partying, especially if trying to get through in four years. Most engineering students were probably "nerds" in high school; bullied by the sports jocks, and shunned by the popular girls.
Today it seems like a lots of kids go to school for the fun, majoring in subjects that are not difficult and having fun (with mom and dad or student loans paying the bill in many cases). But things change when you get into the real world. Unemployment of recent college graduates is at an all time high...except for the "nerds".
There is such a shortage of engineering and science majors graduating, that they are the new "stars" on campus. Not only being offered high salaries, but like sports stars they are being offered signing bonuses, living stipends, meals, and even equity positions in their prospective companies. Some companies are even approaching the brightest students and encouraging them to leave college and join their companies. "After all, Steve Jobs, Michael dell, and Bill Gates all left college to go into the business world"
Karma...
I was an engineering major in college, and anyone who majored in science will tell you it is a lot of work. In my case, I was also working full time and trying to raise a family, but even full time engineering students will tell you there is little time for partying, especially if trying to get through in four years. Most engineering students were probably "nerds" in high school; bullied by the sports jocks, and shunned by the popular girls.
Today it seems like a lots of kids go to school for the fun, majoring in subjects that are not difficult and having fun (with mom and dad or student loans paying the bill in many cases). But things change when you get into the real world. Unemployment of recent college graduates is at an all time high...except for the "nerds".
There is such a shortage of engineering and science majors graduating, that they are the new "stars" on campus. Not only being offered high salaries, but like sports stars they are being offered signing bonuses, living stipends, meals, and even equity positions in their prospective companies. Some companies are even approaching the brightest students and encouraging them to leave college and join their companies. "After all, Steve Jobs, Michael dell, and Bill Gates all left college to go into the business world"
Karma...
Monday, May 14, 2012
"Boring and competent"
Now that Mitt Romney is apparently our nominee, most of my Republican/Conservative friends and family members make the same comment: "He is not my choice but I will vote for anyone over Obama". We characterize Romney as boring, no sense of humor, he's rich and doesn't relate, not conservative enough, he's a Mormon, etc. But I have never heard anyone refer to him as "incompetent" or "not qualified to be president".
On the other hand, we have had almost four years of the "razzle dazzle". Obama is charismatic, he has an attractive first lady and the White House is a constant stream of parties; celebrity visitors like the Rolling Stones and Opra; and the Obama's can be seen on one talk show visit after another. Obama even sings almost as good as Al Green. He is also the most prolific fundraiser in history. But on the other hand, the comment I hear the most about his ability as our president is: "incompetent".
So, what do we want, a competent but boring president that may turn out to be a good "manager", and one that might get this country back on track again, or do we want more of the "razzle dazzle" while the "USA Titanic" is sinking.
I have no idea if Romney would be a good president or just another politician that would settle into the Washington bullshit and continue to take us down the same road...but at least we know where Obama and his minions are taking us, and it is a dangerous direction.
The Democrats are good - the federal debt is now $16 trillion, 25 million of our citizens are out of work with many more "underemployed", Europe is going bankrupt, the Mid-East is about to explode and thanks to the complicit liberal media, all we are talking about is Romney playing pranks in high school, and gay marriage. My head is sometimes ready to explode when I see the average American more interested in the "razzle dazzle" than trying to keep the USA Titanic from sinking.
I'll gamble on "boring and competent".
On the other hand, we have had almost four years of the "razzle dazzle". Obama is charismatic, he has an attractive first lady and the White House is a constant stream of parties; celebrity visitors like the Rolling Stones and Opra; and the Obama's can be seen on one talk show visit after another. Obama even sings almost as good as Al Green. He is also the most prolific fundraiser in history. But on the other hand, the comment I hear the most about his ability as our president is: "incompetent".
So, what do we want, a competent but boring president that may turn out to be a good "manager", and one that might get this country back on track again, or do we want more of the "razzle dazzle" while the "USA Titanic" is sinking.
I have no idea if Romney would be a good president or just another politician that would settle into the Washington bullshit and continue to take us down the same road...but at least we know where Obama and his minions are taking us, and it is a dangerous direction.
The Democrats are good - the federal debt is now $16 trillion, 25 million of our citizens are out of work with many more "underemployed", Europe is going bankrupt, the Mid-East is about to explode and thanks to the complicit liberal media, all we are talking about is Romney playing pranks in high school, and gay marriage. My head is sometimes ready to explode when I see the average American more interested in the "razzle dazzle" than trying to keep the USA Titanic from sinking.
I'll gamble on "boring and competent".
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
"Fantasy Politics"
My sons, grandsons, and friends participate in a Fantasy Football league every year. We get to draft our own team, and then live with the results.
Those that read this blog know that I believe this political team of Obama's is one of the most (maybe the most) incompetent group of people ever assembled to run this country. Most are academics that have never lived in the real world.
The recent EPA bureaucrat who bragged about "crucifying" oil companies is an example of what I mean. This lightweight is an academic who has never had any real world experience in the oil industry or any other industry, yet he had the power. But when he was exposed for his vendetta against oil companies, he was forced to resign.
This is typical of so many of the Obama administration...is it any surprise that the economy in this country is in the tank, when the people running it have rarely even run a company or created a job? The bottom line is that our president is an academic who has never had any experience in the real world, and the results are obvious. Few businessmen in their right mind are going to expand in this economic environment, not knowing what the future will bring.
It appears Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee in this important election and even though none of the primary candidates were my choice, I have put together my "Fantasy Political Team". This prediction means nothing, but compare my group with our present team of so-called leaders:
Chuckie D's Fantasy Political team:
President
Mitt Romney. Not my choice but 'it is what it is'. For those like me that are not thrilled with Romney; maybe...just maybe, instead of a "cool and charismatic" leader that is clueless when it comes to the serious financial and economic problems we are facing, we need a pragmatic manager that gets serious about the depth of the hole we are in and takes steps, as painful as they may be, to keep this country from financially going off a cliff.
Vice -President
Marco Rubio. Not just because he is a Latino and would bring in some of that vote. Have you paid attention to him when he speaks? This guy is a future Conservative super star and I think would be very capable if he ever had to take over as a President. He is young, but remember, people thought JFK was a "kid" also.
Secretary-of-State and National Security Adviser
John Bolton. I would give both of these responsibilities to the same person. Bolton is a tough former UN Ambassador and believes in Reagan's philosophy; "Peace through Strength". He would not let our allies or enemies push us around.
Attorney General
Chris Christie. Governor of New Jersey and former Attorney General of that state. He is a constitutionalist that will not put up with any BS and is a future major leader of the Conservative movement. He could also be a possible VP choice, but regardless, he should be part of the team to replace the "dinosaurs" we have in Washington.
Treasury Secretary
Paul Ryan. Representative from Wisconsin and the only one who truly realizes the seriousness of this country's financial situation.
Head of Homeland Security
Rudy Giuliani. He probably would not take the job, but who is more qualified? He was on the front lines during the worse terrorist attack in history. He turned around crime in NYC, and would take a much more realistic approach to this country's security compared to the TSA fiasco we are now experiencing.
These are just a few of my Cabinet choices but they are the important ones.
Now, if we are fortunate enough to take control of the Senate and keep control of the House, my "Fantasy Political Team" would clean house of all the establishment politicians and here would be the leaders:
House Majority Leader
Alan West. Representative from Florida, former military leader. OK he was just a freshman these past two years and would not have a chance to overcome the seniority status of the good old boys but he would completely change the direction of the House, in favor of the people. Paul Ryan would be a better choice but we need him in Treasury.
Senate Majority Leader
Rand Paul. Again, he was just a freshman last term but would completely change the Senate into a body that would follow the Constitution. He is a charismatic and more realistic version of his father Ron Paul.
So this is my Fantasy Political team. Some of these choices would never happen, but this would be my "draft" - after all we need to have our fantasies. If you don't agree, post your own "Fantasy Political Team" as a comment.
Those that read this blog know that I believe this political team of Obama's is one of the most (maybe the most) incompetent group of people ever assembled to run this country. Most are academics that have never lived in the real world.
The recent EPA bureaucrat who bragged about "crucifying" oil companies is an example of what I mean. This lightweight is an academic who has never had any real world experience in the oil industry or any other industry, yet he had the power. But when he was exposed for his vendetta against oil companies, he was forced to resign.
This is typical of so many of the Obama administration...is it any surprise that the economy in this country is in the tank, when the people running it have rarely even run a company or created a job? The bottom line is that our president is an academic who has never had any experience in the real world, and the results are obvious. Few businessmen in their right mind are going to expand in this economic environment, not knowing what the future will bring.
It appears Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee in this important election and even though none of the primary candidates were my choice, I have put together my "Fantasy Political Team". This prediction means nothing, but compare my group with our present team of so-called leaders:
Chuckie D's Fantasy Political team:
President
Mitt Romney. Not my choice but 'it is what it is'. For those like me that are not thrilled with Romney; maybe...just maybe, instead of a "cool and charismatic" leader that is clueless when it comes to the serious financial and economic problems we are facing, we need a pragmatic manager that gets serious about the depth of the hole we are in and takes steps, as painful as they may be, to keep this country from financially going off a cliff.
Vice -President
Marco Rubio. Not just because he is a Latino and would bring in some of that vote. Have you paid attention to him when he speaks? This guy is a future Conservative super star and I think would be very capable if he ever had to take over as a President. He is young, but remember, people thought JFK was a "kid" also.
Secretary-of-State and National Security Adviser
John Bolton. I would give both of these responsibilities to the same person. Bolton is a tough former UN Ambassador and believes in Reagan's philosophy; "Peace through Strength". He would not let our allies or enemies push us around.
Attorney General
Chris Christie. Governor of New Jersey and former Attorney General of that state. He is a constitutionalist that will not put up with any BS and is a future major leader of the Conservative movement. He could also be a possible VP choice, but regardless, he should be part of the team to replace the "dinosaurs" we have in Washington.
Treasury Secretary
Paul Ryan. Representative from Wisconsin and the only one who truly realizes the seriousness of this country's financial situation.
Head of Homeland Security
Rudy Giuliani. He probably would not take the job, but who is more qualified? He was on the front lines during the worse terrorist attack in history. He turned around crime in NYC, and would take a much more realistic approach to this country's security compared to the TSA fiasco we are now experiencing.
These are just a few of my Cabinet choices but they are the important ones.
Now, if we are fortunate enough to take control of the Senate and keep control of the House, my "Fantasy Political Team" would clean house of all the establishment politicians and here would be the leaders:
House Majority Leader
Alan West. Representative from Florida, former military leader. OK he was just a freshman these past two years and would not have a chance to overcome the seniority status of the good old boys but he would completely change the direction of the House, in favor of the people. Paul Ryan would be a better choice but we need him in Treasury.
Senate Majority Leader
Rand Paul. Again, he was just a freshman last term but would completely change the Senate into a body that would follow the Constitution. He is a charismatic and more realistic version of his father Ron Paul.
So this is my Fantasy Political team. Some of these choices would never happen, but this would be my "draft" - after all we need to have our fantasies. If you don't agree, post your own "Fantasy Political Team" as a comment.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
What happened to post-racial America?
The election of Barack Obama, our first black President, was supposed to be the beginning of the "post racial" period in America. The embers of the race relation fires were slowly going out, but when the Obama administration took over they quickly threw gasoline on the fire.
It started with Eric Holder refusing to charge the Black Panthers with voter intimidation, even though they were clearly shown on video doing exactly that. The former (white) lawyer who resigned from the Justice Department over the Panther issue has stated that Holder issued an edict that the Department would not pursue cases against African Americans.
Then there was Obama's famous "beer summit". This fiasco started when a black Harvard professor was arrested for disorderly conduct after police came to his home to investigate a possible break-in. Obama intensified the controversy when he said the police had "acted stupidly." He then invited the Professor and the Police Sargent to the White House to have a beer and smooth things out. At best the "beer summit" was awkward and stupid leaving much of America wondering why Obama got involved in the first place.
To many of us race relations are not getting better, they are getting worse. Presidents have always been criticized by those whose political philosophy was different, or by citizens who did not agree with an administration's policies. But to many on the right, criticism of Obama has drawn charges of "racism", when in fact race has nothing to do with it. After all, he did receive 53% of the vote. But the left, along with the complicit media still plays the race card whenever it is needed to protect Obama's flank.
The recent Travon Martin/George Zimmerman incident has ignited a "race firestorm" and thanks to the liberal media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and black politicians, race relations are again at an all-time low. This was a tragic incident; the parents of Travon will never get their child back and George Zimmerman and his family will never be the same. None of us know what happened and I have no idea whether Zimmerman is a murderer or if he is innocent. But sadly he has already been tried and convicted by many on the left.
Congressmen saying; "Travon was hunted down like a dog", NBC purposely doctoring tapes to make Zimmerman look like a racist, and many on the left making outlandish statements when none of us know (yet) what really happened. The New York Times even referred to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" because his father is white and mother is a Latina. Can you imagine the Times or any other liberal media referring to Obama as a "white African American"?
Meanwhile President Obama, Eric Holder, and the liberal media remained silent while the Black Panthers put a bounty on Zimmerman's head and Panther radio programs talked about "white pigs" and "white blood in the street". Can you imagine their response if this kind of rhetoric came from the KKK or a Neo Nazi group?
After all this, how will Zimmerman ever get a fair trial? Would you serve on a jury knowing that if the facts proved Zimmerman's innocence, and you voted for a "not guilty" verdict that your life might be at risk?
This is a "no win" situation. If Zimmerman is found "guilty", many in the white community will feel the pre-trial "conviction" by the media, black leaders like Sharpton, and black Congressmen played a role, and he never had a chance for a fair trial. If Zimmerman is found "not guilty" there will be race riots.
Either way we all lose.
It started with Eric Holder refusing to charge the Black Panthers with voter intimidation, even though they were clearly shown on video doing exactly that. The former (white) lawyer who resigned from the Justice Department over the Panther issue has stated that Holder issued an edict that the Department would not pursue cases against African Americans.
Then there was Obama's famous "beer summit". This fiasco started when a black Harvard professor was arrested for disorderly conduct after police came to his home to investigate a possible break-in. Obama intensified the controversy when he said the police had "acted stupidly." He then invited the Professor and the Police Sargent to the White House to have a beer and smooth things out. At best the "beer summit" was awkward and stupid leaving much of America wondering why Obama got involved in the first place.
To many of us race relations are not getting better, they are getting worse. Presidents have always been criticized by those whose political philosophy was different, or by citizens who did not agree with an administration's policies. But to many on the right, criticism of Obama has drawn charges of "racism", when in fact race has nothing to do with it. After all, he did receive 53% of the vote. But the left, along with the complicit media still plays the race card whenever it is needed to protect Obama's flank.
The recent Travon Martin/George Zimmerman incident has ignited a "race firestorm" and thanks to the liberal media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and black politicians, race relations are again at an all-time low. This was a tragic incident; the parents of Travon will never get their child back and George Zimmerman and his family will never be the same. None of us know what happened and I have no idea whether Zimmerman is a murderer or if he is innocent. But sadly he has already been tried and convicted by many on the left.
Congressmen saying; "Travon was hunted down like a dog", NBC purposely doctoring tapes to make Zimmerman look like a racist, and many on the left making outlandish statements when none of us know (yet) what really happened. The New York Times even referred to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" because his father is white and mother is a Latina. Can you imagine the Times or any other liberal media referring to Obama as a "white African American"?
Meanwhile President Obama, Eric Holder, and the liberal media remained silent while the Black Panthers put a bounty on Zimmerman's head and Panther radio programs talked about "white pigs" and "white blood in the street". Can you imagine their response if this kind of rhetoric came from the KKK or a Neo Nazi group?
After all this, how will Zimmerman ever get a fair trial? Would you serve on a jury knowing that if the facts proved Zimmerman's innocence, and you voted for a "not guilty" verdict that your life might be at risk?
This is a "no win" situation. If Zimmerman is found "guilty", many in the white community will feel the pre-trial "conviction" by the media, black leaders like Sharpton, and black Congressmen played a role, and he never had a chance for a fair trial. If Zimmerman is found "not guilty" there will be race riots.
Either way we all lose.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Leadership counts
"Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall".
How clearly I remember this quote by Ronald Reagan during the height of the Cold War with the Soviets. Whether you were a Reagan supporter or not, you could not help but feel confident this country was in good hands and we had a leader that was strong, one who projected the exceptionalism of America, and one who would defend this country no matter what.
At his famous meeting with Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, Reagan walked away from a deal that would have seen a drastic reduction in intermediate and intercontinental missiles on the American and Soviet sides of the Iron Curtain. But the Soviets insisted that as part of the deal Reagan cancel his planned "star wars' missile defense shield. He diplomatically told Gorbachev to "shove it" and against the advice of his own staff walked away from the agreement.
Many historians feel this was the "beginning of the end" of the Cold War leading to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Unlike Barack Obama, I am not ashamed to say the USA is the most admired, the most powerful, and the country most envied by the rest of the world. To paraphrase a letter to the editor in a recent Wall Street Journal; "With the success of this country has come a culture of generosity in foreign affairs, sometimes in self-interest, but notably, sometimes not". In the event of another "World War", what would Europe, Israel, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or many other countries around the world do without the USA for protection?
I agree with Ron Paul that we are not the "policemen" or "nation builders" of the world. The Iraq war was a disaster, and most likely Afghanistan will go down in history as the same. But how quickly we forget the genocide in Bosnia during the mid-90's, while the Europeans stood by before the USA and the UK moved in and stopped it.
This is an exceptional country, and our leader should keep reinforcing that attitude rather than apologizing for what he thinks are our faults.
Obama's latest "off mic" comments were more telling than anything. In the comments caught by the mic he urged Russian outgoing President Medvedev to tell incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin to give him time:
"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved – but it's important for him to give me space."
Medvedev replied:
"Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you."
Obama then elaborated:
"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Medvedev responded:
"I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
Can you imagine Reagan "bowing" to the Soviets like this (or could you imagine him bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia)? This is our weak President in action. Do we really think the Soviets will negotiate as "friends" or in our best interests? Russia like the Middle East only responds to power and strength.
Leadership counts. We may not have another Ronald Reagan for a while, but hopefully this November we will elect a new leader of this great country...how could we not improve?
How clearly I remember this quote by Ronald Reagan during the height of the Cold War with the Soviets. Whether you were a Reagan supporter or not, you could not help but feel confident this country was in good hands and we had a leader that was strong, one who projected the exceptionalism of America, and one who would defend this country no matter what.
At his famous meeting with Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, Reagan walked away from a deal that would have seen a drastic reduction in intermediate and intercontinental missiles on the American and Soviet sides of the Iron Curtain. But the Soviets insisted that as part of the deal Reagan cancel his planned "star wars' missile defense shield. He diplomatically told Gorbachev to "shove it" and against the advice of his own staff walked away from the agreement.
Many historians feel this was the "beginning of the end" of the Cold War leading to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Unlike Barack Obama, I am not ashamed to say the USA is the most admired, the most powerful, and the country most envied by the rest of the world. To paraphrase a letter to the editor in a recent Wall Street Journal; "With the success of this country has come a culture of generosity in foreign affairs, sometimes in self-interest, but notably, sometimes not". In the event of another "World War", what would Europe, Israel, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or many other countries around the world do without the USA for protection?
I agree with Ron Paul that we are not the "policemen" or "nation builders" of the world. The Iraq war was a disaster, and most likely Afghanistan will go down in history as the same. But how quickly we forget the genocide in Bosnia during the mid-90's, while the Europeans stood by before the USA and the UK moved in and stopped it.
This is an exceptional country, and our leader should keep reinforcing that attitude rather than apologizing for what he thinks are our faults.
Obama's latest "off mic" comments were more telling than anything. In the comments caught by the mic he urged Russian outgoing President Medvedev to tell incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin to give him time:
"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved – but it's important for him to give me space."
Medvedev replied:
"Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you."
Obama then elaborated:
"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Medvedev responded:
"I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
Can you imagine Reagan "bowing" to the Soviets like this (or could you imagine him bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia)? This is our weak President in action. Do we really think the Soviets will negotiate as "friends" or in our best interests? Russia like the Middle East only responds to power and strength.
Leadership counts. We may not have another Ronald Reagan for a while, but hopefully this November we will elect a new leader of this great country...how could we not improve?
Monday, March 26, 2012
"The most important election of our lifetime"
"The most important election of our lifetime"...we hear this every Presidential election from both Democrats and Republicans as they regurgitate all the standard election year talking points. But the more I look at the state of this country, the more I believe THIS IS the most important election of our life time.
1/ The National Debt - This is the most important problem facing this nation, yet the least understood by the average American. We can understand what a billion dollars is because we read about "billionaires" like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet every day (although 99.99% of us will never experience being a billionaire). But how many Americans can even comprehend a "trillion" dollars? That's 1000 billion folks...hard to comprehend isn't it? Starting with President Bush, out of control spending has resulted in a US national debt that will approach $16 trillion this year and most of our leaders, especially our President, do not seem to have a clue, much less the desire to address this problem. Why? Because this is an election year when politicians are only interested in protecting their job and will do nothing that might cause pain to their constituents. But believe me, at this point there is no way to solve this problem without pain.
And sadly the "pain" may be inherited by our children and grandchildren.
2/ The Entitlement Society - This is really the redistribution of income from the "payers" to the "takers". The US has always been a compassionate country; religious organizations and ordinary citizens have always led the effort to take care of people in need. But the "takers" are approaching a majority in this country - 42 million on food stamps, two years unemployment insurance, subsidized housing, free college education, school breakfast lunch and dinner, welfare that can make you rich if you have enough children, free government supplied cell phone and minutes....etc. I could go on. Don't classify me as a "right wing radical", I do feel the "unfortunate" in this country should be taken care of, but they should also be given an opportunity to improve themselves by hard work and by given the freedom to make their own way.
"Ask not what your country can do for you..." those famous words by John Kennedy have long since been forgotten in the Democratic philosophy. Barack Obama's campaign slogan should be: "Ask what the government can do for you". The Democrats know that an "entitlement society" is necessary to keep them in power or they would quickly become irrelevant. Many of these entitlement programs sadly just keep poor people "on the Democratic plantation".
There is also a very important side issue connected to the move toward becoming an entitlement society - this country is broke. I keep being reminded of Margaret Thatcher's famous quote; "The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money".
3/ Government control and regulations - A recent report by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee says the Obama administration has imposed 75 new major regulations costing more than $380 billion over ten years. To be fair, I have done some research and during the last two years of the Bush administration, they began the "tsunami" of regulations that is stifling freedom, especially for small businesses that create most of the new jobs. We all agree that some government regulation is required but it is out of control.
Here is a small example: The Department of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (yes that's their name), has almost 500 employees that regulate and approve wine labels. And they are now considering the requirement to add "serving facts" that would list fat content, calories, carbohydrates, and protein data on wine labels. They recently rejected a label by a local Paso Robles winery because the wine was to be called "Antidote", which the regulators said had a "curative claim", while at the same time signing off on a label from an Illinois winery called "Liquid Panty Remover"...that's funny. But sadly these government wine label "regulators" probably make more money and get better pensions than 90% of all winery workers in the US, and they produce nothing.
But among all new regulations Obamacare is the "poster child" for government control. God help us if the Supreme Court finds it legal.
4/ The Supreme Court - Few people pay attention to this, but it is another very big issue in this important election. Several liberal Supreme Court judges are old, and the next President could appoint as many as two new judges. With a Republican President and Congress we have the opportunity to remake this as a Court that will go back to following the Constitution as the Founders intended. If Obama is reelected and can somehow increase the liberal majority on the court, in my opinion we will slowly become a socialist country with a long term prognosis of disaster.
If Republicans hold the House and take the Senate, they can stop much of the new regulations and hopefully slow down the disastrous deficit and entitlement spending, but they will not be able to repeal Obamacare (if it is found to be legal), and will not be able to nominate judges to the Court. For many of us, this Republican primary has been disappointing - not very impressive candidates; they spend their time attacking each other instead of the target - Obama and his policies. But it's time to "consolidate our forces" and get ready to attack. In my opinion, Santorum and Gingrich are just mucking things up and neither would be a good President, or have a chance against Obama. Mitt Romney may not be our first choice, but with the right VP, he has the best chance of beating Obama, which is the only thing that matters in this election.
1/ The National Debt - This is the most important problem facing this nation, yet the least understood by the average American. We can understand what a billion dollars is because we read about "billionaires" like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet every day (although 99.99% of us will never experience being a billionaire). But how many Americans can even comprehend a "trillion" dollars? That's 1000 billion folks...hard to comprehend isn't it? Starting with President Bush, out of control spending has resulted in a US national debt that will approach $16 trillion this year and most of our leaders, especially our President, do not seem to have a clue, much less the desire to address this problem. Why? Because this is an election year when politicians are only interested in protecting their job and will do nothing that might cause pain to their constituents. But believe me, at this point there is no way to solve this problem without pain.
And sadly the "pain" may be inherited by our children and grandchildren.
2/ The Entitlement Society - This is really the redistribution of income from the "payers" to the "takers". The US has always been a compassionate country; religious organizations and ordinary citizens have always led the effort to take care of people in need. But the "takers" are approaching a majority in this country - 42 million on food stamps, two years unemployment insurance, subsidized housing, free college education, school breakfast lunch and dinner, welfare that can make you rich if you have enough children, free government supplied cell phone and minutes....etc. I could go on. Don't classify me as a "right wing radical", I do feel the "unfortunate" in this country should be taken care of, but they should also be given an opportunity to improve themselves by hard work and by given the freedom to make their own way.
"Ask not what your country can do for you..." those famous words by John Kennedy have long since been forgotten in the Democratic philosophy. Barack Obama's campaign slogan should be: "Ask what the government can do for you". The Democrats know that an "entitlement society" is necessary to keep them in power or they would quickly become irrelevant. Many of these entitlement programs sadly just keep poor people "on the Democratic plantation".
There is also a very important side issue connected to the move toward becoming an entitlement society - this country is broke. I keep being reminded of Margaret Thatcher's famous quote; "The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money".
3/ Government control and regulations - A recent report by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee says the Obama administration has imposed 75 new major regulations costing more than $380 billion over ten years. To be fair, I have done some research and during the last two years of the Bush administration, they began the "tsunami" of regulations that is stifling freedom, especially for small businesses that create most of the new jobs. We all agree that some government regulation is required but it is out of control.
Here is a small example: The Department of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (yes that's their name), has almost 500 employees that regulate and approve wine labels. And they are now considering the requirement to add "serving facts" that would list fat content, calories, carbohydrates, and protein data on wine labels. They recently rejected a label by a local Paso Robles winery because the wine was to be called "Antidote", which the regulators said had a "curative claim", while at the same time signing off on a label from an Illinois winery called "Liquid Panty Remover"...that's funny. But sadly these government wine label "regulators" probably make more money and get better pensions than 90% of all winery workers in the US, and they produce nothing.
But among all new regulations Obamacare is the "poster child" for government control. God help us if the Supreme Court finds it legal.
4/ The Supreme Court - Few people pay attention to this, but it is another very big issue in this important election. Several liberal Supreme Court judges are old, and the next President could appoint as many as two new judges. With a Republican President and Congress we have the opportunity to remake this as a Court that will go back to following the Constitution as the Founders intended. If Obama is reelected and can somehow increase the liberal majority on the court, in my opinion we will slowly become a socialist country with a long term prognosis of disaster.
If Republicans hold the House and take the Senate, they can stop much of the new regulations and hopefully slow down the disastrous deficit and entitlement spending, but they will not be able to repeal Obamacare (if it is found to be legal), and will not be able to nominate judges to the Court. For many of us, this Republican primary has been disappointing - not very impressive candidates; they spend their time attacking each other instead of the target - Obama and his policies. But it's time to "consolidate our forces" and get ready to attack. In my opinion, Santorum and Gingrich are just mucking things up and neither would be a good President, or have a chance against Obama. Mitt Romney may not be our first choice, but with the right VP, he has the best chance of beating Obama, which is the only thing that matters in this election.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
"Mr. Bluster"
OK I'm dating myself again, unless you're 65 or older you will not recognize this picture. It is a puppet called "Mr. Bluster" from the Howdy Doody show, popular in the late forties/ early fifties. Maybe it would be best to look back at one of my older Blogs first;http://chuckiedspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/06/its-howdy-doody-time.html
In that previous Blog I talked about the Obama "puppet" show and wondered who was pulling the strings. Well for you geezers that read this Blog, you will remember that Mr. Bluster on the Howdy Doody show was the "caricature" of a politician. Talk, talk but saying nothing. And if you don't remember Bluster, how about "Foghorn Leghorn" in the old Sylvester cartoons.
To round out the cast of the Obama "puppet show" we have our own "Mr Bluster". This Mr. Bluster has hair plugs and is known affectionately by our military as "Joe Bite Me".
If there was ever a caricature of a politician it is Joe Biden. The Obama administration has announced that they are now in campaign mode and have sent the "gaff machine" out to get things rolling. This guy is the gift that keeps on giving to us Conservatives. During his first big parade this St. Patrick's day in Pittsburgh, home of the working man (and Biden's home state), he was loudly booed by many in the crowd...ouch.
But incredibly this VP thinks he is something special. Most people are not aware that "Joe Bluster" ran for President way back in 1988 but dropped out when it was revealed he plagiarized a speech from an English (Socialist) politician. And after that he was found to have used parts of speeches from several politicians including Robert Kennedy. His "gaffs" are famous, just Google it.
But today he outdid himself with the following quote: ""That puts it above the D-Day invasion of Normandy in 1944, the surprise landing at Inchon in 1950 that turned the tide of the Korean War or, going back a bit further, George Washington's daring night-time crossing of the Delaware River before the Battle of Trenton in 1776." The "gaff machine" keeps on giving.
But sadly Biden is more than a caricature; he is everything that represents the low 12% rating of Congress along with the many incompetent so-called leaders in DC. It is a sad commentary on the American voter that we allow this kind of politician to rise to the level of VP of this country and be one heartbeat from being our President.
Although here is some food for thought - could "Joe Bite Me" do any worse than Barack Obama?
Saturday, March 17, 2012
St. Patricks Day "Black and Tan"
If you Google it you will get dozens of suggestions for making it - take it from me they don't work. Here is the basic recipe - pour about 2/3 glass of the pale ale then slowly (over a spoon) pour the Guinness which being heavier will float on top, I have tried and tried and the two always mix together. Even my "pro bartender" grandson couldn't do it during his visit on St Pat day last year.
But I finally figured it out this year. First get the Guinness and Bass English Pale Ale. Prepare the glass, get the spoon ready. Mix yourself a double martini (two olives). In the beer glass pour about 2/3 of the pale ale. Then put on your favorite Opera CD. Take a sip of the martini (maybe two). Now very carefully pour the Guinness over a spoon on the pale ale so that the two don't mix as shown in the picture (but they always do, the picture is Photo shopped).
So to celebrate this day, listen to the opera, drink your martini and as a chaser have the Bass Ale/ Guinness mix and tell everyone you are a "Black and Tan" expert.
Happy Saint Patrick's Day everyone.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The "I's" have it..
'Narcissism'; a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action.
Maybe it's me, but does it bother you that Obama uses the word "I" in most of his speeches? Yesterday I watched him in a news conference with David Cameron, Prime Minister of England. On the subject of Iran, Obama made the following comments: "I will never let Iran develop a nuclear bomb", and after that: "If they do not stop I will take action". If you listen to his speeches about being the President that took down Bin Laden you would think that he was the first one out of that helicopter and personally put a bullet through Bin Laden's heart.
Yes, he is the President and the "buck stops there", but does he really believe that? I don't see him taking responsibility for anything; "It was George Bush's fault", "The economy was much worse than I thought", "I can't do anything about high gas prices", etc.
I wonder what his staff, his Cabinet, his supporters in Congress, his military leaders, think about his inability to use the word "we"?
Maybe this is a rant, but "I' think he is a narcissist of the worse kind that cannot stand for anyone else to get credit but himself. Someone once said; "To be a truly successful leader, surround yourself with talented managers, give them some direction, and then back off and get out of their way". Having been a CEO of successful companies, I could never have used the word "I" because remembering all the great employees I was surrounded with over the years, "we" were the reason for success.
Maybe it's me, but does it bother you that Obama uses the word "I" in most of his speeches? Yesterday I watched him in a news conference with David Cameron, Prime Minister of England. On the subject of Iran, Obama made the following comments: "I will never let Iran develop a nuclear bomb", and after that: "If they do not stop I will take action". If you listen to his speeches about being the President that took down Bin Laden you would think that he was the first one out of that helicopter and personally put a bullet through Bin Laden's heart.
Yes, he is the President and the "buck stops there", but does he really believe that? I don't see him taking responsibility for anything; "It was George Bush's fault", "The economy was much worse than I thought", "I can't do anything about high gas prices", etc.
I wonder what his staff, his Cabinet, his supporters in Congress, his military leaders, think about his inability to use the word "we"?
Maybe this is a rant, but "I' think he is a narcissist of the worse kind that cannot stand for anyone else to get credit but himself. Someone once said; "To be a truly successful leader, surround yourself with talented managers, give them some direction, and then back off and get out of their way". Having been a CEO of successful companies, I could never have used the word "I" because remembering all the great employees I was surrounded with over the years, "we" were the reason for success.
Friday, March 2, 2012
"It's the Contraception stupid"
"It's the economy stupid" was a phrase attributed to James Carville and used by Bill Clinton in his successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H.W. Bush. If Barack Obama tried to use that slogan during this election campaign he would lose in a landslide. So his campaign needs a new slogan; how about: "It's the contraception stupid"
Stupid? No, actually clever. The national debt will be $16 trillion this year, 14 million Americans are unemployed, 42 million Americans are on food stamps, home foreclosures are higher than any time in history, and gas is approaching $5/gallon. With all of these serious problems in our economy, the Democrats and complicit main stream media have succeeded in getting the "free contraception" debate front and center.
But the debate has nothing to do with free contraception and everything to do with freedom and government control. Why should I pay for the lifestyle decisions of someone else? The argument is that it is "a women's health issue". First of all any woman can go to the local Planned Parenthood office and get all the contraception she needs (and Planned Parenthood is subsidized to the tune of $450 million annually by the American taxpayers). But let's say it is a health issue and the government should pay for it. I need to go to a health club because of health issues, should the government pay my dues?
But again, the issue is not "contraception", it is government control, more and more of it. This entitlement mentality is growing like a cancer in this country, and we simply do not have the money to pay for it. Originally it was school lunches, then school breakfast and lunch, and now in some states school breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And it didn't stop there, now thanks to Michelle Obama the schools are being told WHAT to put in those meals. What ever happened to personal responsibility, whether it is seeing that your children are fed or buying your own contraception?
But the clever Democrats have again managed to divert the argument to this stupid issue of mandated free contraception. I never thought I would say this but James Carville and Bill Clinton were right; "It is the economy stupid".
Stupid? No, actually clever. The national debt will be $16 trillion this year, 14 million Americans are unemployed, 42 million Americans are on food stamps, home foreclosures are higher than any time in history, and gas is approaching $5/gallon. With all of these serious problems in our economy, the Democrats and complicit main stream media have succeeded in getting the "free contraception" debate front and center.
But the debate has nothing to do with free contraception and everything to do with freedom and government control. Why should I pay for the lifestyle decisions of someone else? The argument is that it is "a women's health issue". First of all any woman can go to the local Planned Parenthood office and get all the contraception she needs (and Planned Parenthood is subsidized to the tune of $450 million annually by the American taxpayers). But let's say it is a health issue and the government should pay for it. I need to go to a health club because of health issues, should the government pay my dues?
But again, the issue is not "contraception", it is government control, more and more of it. This entitlement mentality is growing like a cancer in this country, and we simply do not have the money to pay for it. Originally it was school lunches, then school breakfast and lunch, and now in some states school breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And it didn't stop there, now thanks to Michelle Obama the schools are being told WHAT to put in those meals. What ever happened to personal responsibility, whether it is seeing that your children are fed or buying your own contraception?
But the clever Democrats have again managed to divert the argument to this stupid issue of mandated free contraception. I never thought I would say this but James Carville and Bill Clinton were right; "It is the economy stupid".
Friday, February 17, 2012
Is the USA a wealthy country?
Ask anyone in the world and they will tell you the USA is a wealthy country; more millionaires, and more billionaires than any other country in the world. And even the "poor" in the USA would be considered middle class or even "wealthy" in some countries.
Greece was once considered a wealthy country; citizens had government provided health care from cradle to grave, 30% percent of the population worked for the government with generous salaries and pensions. Even those working in the private sector had generous pensions and could retire at a relatively young age. And 4-6 weeks’ vacation leave was standard for most. It was a wonderful life. So why are they now rioting in the streets and burning down their buildings and businesses?
Because no one will lend Greece money anymore!
This Shangri-La that was once Greece is now facing reality. For decades the country survived on "borrowed" money and finally the lenders said "no mas". And since the state now has no money to pay all these wonderful entitlements they have to make cuts to pensions, minimum wages, lay off non-producing government employees, and now the citizens are rioting as a result of their "entitlements" being taken away from them.
But this could never happen here in the USA could it? We are a “wealthy” country, inventors of the iPod, the IPhone, Facebook and all the wonderful technology that makes this country hum along. We take care of our people – 42 million on food stamps, housing subsidies for the poor, school breakfast and lunch (and in some cases dinner) for school kids, free cell phones and “minutes” for the poor, 99 weeks unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security…and I read recently that a family that qualifies for all the government programs available could receive over $32000 in welfare payments a year; more that the average “working” family….is this a great country or what?
But what most people want to ignore (or don’t understand), this country has borrowed $15 trillion dollars along the way; soon to be $16 trillion…the national debt under Obama. This debt has been accumulated for decades under many Presidents, but Obama has “doubled down” on borrowing with his plethora of social programs and has taken this country to the edge of financial disaster.
What happens when our lenders say “no mas”?
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Gospel of Tim
From the Gospel of Timothy 1:14:12
The Lord is my sheperd; I shall not want.
He maketh me play football in green pastures;
he leadeth me to the end zone when the game is on the line.
He restoreth my soul;
he leadeth me in the path of my offensive blockers.
Yea, though I walk through the depths of Gillete Stadium,
I will fear no Patriots;
for thou and my teammates are with me;
my coach and his staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest an upset before me in the presence of mine enemies;
thou "anointest" my head with trick plays;
and my adrenalin runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me each minute of this game;
and after winning I will dwell in the house of the Broncos forever.
"Praise the Lord and pass me the football"
Give em hell Saturday night Tebow!
The Lord is my sheperd; I shall not want.
He maketh me play football in green pastures;
he leadeth me to the end zone when the game is on the line.
He restoreth my soul;
he leadeth me in the path of my offensive blockers.
Yea, though I walk through the depths of Gillete Stadium,
I will fear no Patriots;
for thou and my teammates are with me;
my coach and his staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest an upset before me in the presence of mine enemies;
thou "anointest" my head with trick plays;
and my adrenalin runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me each minute of this game;
and after winning I will dwell in the house of the Broncos forever.
"Praise the Lord and pass me the football"
Give em hell Saturday night Tebow!
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
"The Bain Train"
As the rough and tumble primary moves on to South Carolina, Romney is being attacked from the left over his so-called "vulture capitalism" while being CEO of Bain Capital. Sadly this "left" attack, I call it the "Bain Train", comes from Obama, Gingrich, Perry, and to some extent Santorum. What the hell are these so-called Conservatives doing joining the Democrats in their battle on capitalism?
First of all I am not a Romney fan. But I am a 'venture capitalist" fan. There is no question that if Romney wins the nomination that the Obama machine will portray him as the "Gordon Gecko" of Wall Street. But I can't believe our side is throwing gas into those flames. I have some experience with venture capital companies and like everything else there are a few bad apples, but without those companies many of the corporations we are all familiar with today (that employ millions of people) would not exist. I have no idea if Bain did any "dishonest" deals, but I did some research today. When Romney started the company they had assets of $37 million to invest, today Bain and it's affiliates are "managing" $66 billion in assets.
I put quotes around "managing" because that's what venture capitalist's do. They take investor's money (if they want to invest it) and risk it on companies that have a potential to make profits, offering them a higher return than they could get elsewhere - IF they are willing to take the risk. The key word is "risk". When I started my high tech company in the late 70's, the failure rate of high tech companies was two failures for every success. Would you take those odds? Remember the .com "bubble" in the 90's - some like Microsoft, Dell, and Oracle were successful, but many more went "bust".
I don't know anything about Bain's performance, but the fact that they have grown so much over the years certainly indicates that they have done a good job for their investors. When venture capitalists take over companies that are in trouble or struggling, they restructure and bring in new management and hopefully turn them around; and in some cases the company is too far gone and they have to put them through bankruptcy. Do people lose their jobs, of course? But if Bain went from $37 million to $66 billion in assets managed, a lot of jobs must have been created along the way by those successes.
Investing in high risk companies is like gambling, and gamblers only tell you about the times they won. The dialog about Bain Capital should be open and then voters can decide whether they did a good job for their investors (and the country) or not. But that will probably not happen - if Romney is the nominee the Obama machine will only tell you about those Bain Capital "gambling losses" and all the people that lost their jobs along the way. We don't need people on our side to help them with that false message.
First of all I am not a Romney fan. But I am a 'venture capitalist" fan. There is no question that if Romney wins the nomination that the Obama machine will portray him as the "Gordon Gecko" of Wall Street. But I can't believe our side is throwing gas into those flames. I have some experience with venture capital companies and like everything else there are a few bad apples, but without those companies many of the corporations we are all familiar with today (that employ millions of people) would not exist. I have no idea if Bain did any "dishonest" deals, but I did some research today. When Romney started the company they had assets of $37 million to invest, today Bain and it's affiliates are "managing" $66 billion in assets.
I put quotes around "managing" because that's what venture capitalist's do. They take investor's money (if they want to invest it) and risk it on companies that have a potential to make profits, offering them a higher return than they could get elsewhere - IF they are willing to take the risk. The key word is "risk". When I started my high tech company in the late 70's, the failure rate of high tech companies was two failures for every success. Would you take those odds? Remember the .com "bubble" in the 90's - some like Microsoft, Dell, and Oracle were successful, but many more went "bust".
I don't know anything about Bain's performance, but the fact that they have grown so much over the years certainly indicates that they have done a good job for their investors. When venture capitalists take over companies that are in trouble or struggling, they restructure and bring in new management and hopefully turn them around; and in some cases the company is too far gone and they have to put them through bankruptcy. Do people lose their jobs, of course? But if Bain went from $37 million to $66 billion in assets managed, a lot of jobs must have been created along the way by those successes.
Investing in high risk companies is like gambling, and gamblers only tell you about the times they won. The dialog about Bain Capital should be open and then voters can decide whether they did a good job for their investors (and the country) or not. But that will probably not happen - if Romney is the nominee the Obama machine will only tell you about those Bain Capital "gambling losses" and all the people that lost their jobs along the way. We don't need people on our side to help them with that false message.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
"The Paul Paradox"
As the Republican primary season moves forward at high speed, many still wonder why Ron Paul is even in the race. He has little charisma and comes across as an "old man" in the debates. Now I am also an "old man", so that is not a pejorative statement. But contrary to his image, he continues to get strong support in these early races and ironically much of this "old man's" support comes from young people.
In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.
This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates. In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.
His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed. He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs. It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.
So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.
Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no. Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional. Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.
In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.
This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates. In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.
His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed. He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs. It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.
So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.
Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no. Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional. Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
