Florida

Tim Bishop, Do You DISCLOSE?

by Bill O'Connell on October 22, 2010

Share and Recommend:

President Obama, during his 2010 State of the Union address, did the unprecedented, which I suppose should surprise no one. He called out the Supreme Court, whose members were seated in front of him, and lambasted them on a recent decision called Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The outcome of the case was that free speech was not limited only to individuals but could include corporations, groups of individuals, etc. As Justice Scalia pointed out in his concurring opinion, the First Amendment refers to speech not speakers.

Click to Read More

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

Social Security: Show Us the Money

by Bill O'Connell on August 31, 2010

Share and Recommend:

President Obama wants to have it both ways. He wants to appear to be fiscally responsible and he knows that to do so, that something has to include Social Security. However, to try to keep as many Democrats in office that he can he has to play that other favorite card of the Democrats, that Republicans want to push grandma in her wheelchair down the stairs by privatizing Social Security.

In a campaign stop in Racine, Wisconsin the president had this to say, “”I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble your Social Security on Wall Street. Because you shouldn’t be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you’ve worked so hard for—all you’ve earned—at risk.” Oh, really, Mr. President? Then perhaps you can show us where all the Social Security money is that you don’t want to put at risk. The problem is that the government spent it all. That’s right, there’s no lock box, no account, no bank vault, no hole in the ground were the money is buried, earning nothing. I only wish I was able to put “at risk” all the money that the government took out of my paycheck along with my employer’s contributions.

Based on my last annual statement from the Social Security administration, the government collected about $170,000 from me and my employers on my behalf. Had I the opportunity to put that “at risk” in the stock market, the Dow Jones 30 industrials to be precise, including all the ups and downs, that $170,000 would be worth about $800,000 today. Thank you Democrats for keeping me safe from accumulating that amount of wealth and instead “investing” it in ethanol, turtle crossings in Florida, bridges to nowhere, airports in John Murtha’s district that no one flies to, etc. By Social Security estimates, that money they took from me and my employers, will be paid back to me and run out about ten to twelve years before I expire. So instead of having a real nest egg that I can live off of and pass the rest on to my heirs, my getting Social Security will depend on the next generation getting taxed to the eyeballs to pay me and they can hope the next generation does not rise up in arms when they get the bill.

Everyone who supports the Social Security system as it is today, acknowledging that we have to fulfill our commitment to those who have retired or are very near to retiring, should join Bernie Madoff in cell block C, for the Ponzi scheme the government created. President Obama, it is time to stop lying to the American people. We don’t want government to run our lives. You have crammed your left wing agenda down our throats and we will give you our rebuttal on November 3. Then your one term will be up two years hence.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Another Paul Krugman Rant: Tax the Rich, Tax the Rich!

by Bill O'Connell on August 24, 2010

Share and Recommend:

In the August 23, 2010, New York Times, Paul Krugman decries that if we don’t let the Bush Tax cuts expire and thus have a massive tax increase in the midst of a weak Obama recovery, it will be so unfair, so evil…

First let’s look at how twisted the logic of the left has become. Mr. Krugman says, “These same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.” Er, not really, Paul, unless the richest 120,000 people are stupid enough, with all their financial advisors, to have that much tax withheld from their incomes. You see, Paul, the only reason the government would have to cut them checks is if they paid too much in taxes during the year, and since the current rates are already in place it is unlikely that they would change their behavior to suddenly have an extra $3 million sent to Washington. Here’s the problem with your thinking, Paul. It is not your money, it is not my money, it is not the government’s money to begin with. It belongs to the people who have earned it. It is the people to provide revenue to the government. It is not the government who gives money to those who produce. Got it?

Like most on the left Mr. Krugman always associates tax cuts with a loss of revenue and tax increases with a gain in revenue, and ignores how people change their behavior with regard to these changes.

As this chart shows, at the end of the Clinton administration and the dot.com bubble the economy fell into recession. The Bush tax cuts were implemented in 2001 and they were across the board tax cuts, not just for the wealthy. A second set of tax cuts came in 2003. As you can see revenues started to fall before the tax cuts, but bounced back sharply after the cuts in 2001 and 2003. But Mr. Krugman would have you believe that if you cut taxes, revenues fall and if you leave them along or increase them, revenues increase. You can also see that Clinton’s tax increase in 1993, didn’t have much effect in changing the rate of revenue growth, but when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and instituted tax cuts in 1997 you can see the slope of the curve bend upwards and it is even steeper with the Bush tax cuts. So in the absence of the 2001 recession, revenues collected increased with tax cuts, not tax increases.

Let’s look at who is paying what share of the taxes. The follow chart shows what percentage of the tax burden was paid by what percentile of the income earners by Adjusted Gross Income.

Year	Top 1%	Top 5%	Top 10%	Top 25%	Top 50%	Bot 50%
1999	36.18%	55.45%	66.45%	83.54%	96.%	4.00%
2007	40.42%	60.63%	71.22%	86.59%	97.11%	2.89%

So even as the Bush tax cuts reduced tax rates across the board, the “evil” rich still ended up carrying a larger share of the overall tax burden than they did before the cuts. So just what is Mr. Krugman’s beef?

I argue that were are nearing a dangerous threshold politically, where the majority of voters may soon find they pay no taxes and the minority pays all. If that tipping point is reached, what is to prevent this majority from voting for massive tax increases that will only affect the minority? All Americans should carry some share of the cost of government. It should not be a free ride for some and a minority pays the tab.

To further emphasize the fairness issue look at the following chart from the IRS in 2004. The brown bars show the share of the income that the percentile on the vertical axis earns. The blue bar shows the share of the total income tax bill they pay.

The problem folks is spending. As the first chart makes pretty clear, we have not been suffering from a revenue problem, we have been suffering from a spending problem. This administration and their instigators, like Mr. Krugman, have been urging reckless spending upon reckless spending and even decrying that the administration has not spent nearly enough. Krugman is sloppy in making his case and tries to convince his readers that we will be carrying buckets of money to the wealthy when the truth is that he wants to open the spigot wider from those who produce in this country to the profligate government who can then spend it on more turtle crossings in Florida, and to prop up the unions, and bankrupt states. Stop spending, cut taxes, shrink the federal beast, and we will be in good shape in short order.

As many people have said, “I never got a job from a poor man.” In looking back at my own career, I have worked for several companies that were started by entrepreneurs and who became wealthy. Do I care if they were wealthy? No. Do I wish they were taxed to the eyeballs? No. If they were, those are jobs I would probably wouldn’t have had. Opportunity is what made America the country where people around the world fight to get into, not bashing the successful. All who stive to come here want to become those wealthy successful people and give the same opportunity to their children.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

The Senate is Broken, Or Is It?

by Bill O'Connell on February 21, 2010

Share and Recommend:

You hear a lot of talk these days about the Senate being broken because nothing can get passed with a majority vote. Everything has to get sixty votes to pass and that’s just un-American. Is it?

The House of Representatives

The Founding Fathers were brilliant in designing the government that has survived longer than any other, and it wasn’t an accident. The House of Representatives was designed to be the branch of government closest to the people. The members come from districts that are sized based on population. It is also in the House of Representatives that all revenue bills (i.e., tax increases) must originate. The Senate cannot create legislation to raise taxes.

The Senate

The Senate was designed with a different purpose in mind. In the form of federalism that they created, the Senate was supposed to represent the individual states. Originally Senators were appointed by the state legislatures and this continued until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, which provided for the direct election of Senators by the people. The Senate was designed to be a check on the tyranny of the majority. In the House, populous states like New York, California, Texas and Florida, have a lot of representation. To prevent a handful of states from pushing around everyone else, representation in the Senate is the same for Rhode Island as it is for California, two each. In the House, California trumps Rhode Island. In the Senate they do not. Are you picking up the theme?

The Dreaded Filibuster

Being able to filibuster in the Senate is another way of allowing cooler heads to prevail. If legislation before the Senate cannot win over some reasonable number of Senators, then it’s probably not a very good idea for the country.

As proof that things are more partisan today, pundits point to how the number of filibusters has greatly increased over time.

In the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted.

It is reported that things really took off during the Clinton administration. Hmm, what else was going on then… Hillary Care? We have also seen the out of control growth of the federal government’s involvement in almost every aspect of our lives, such as, how much we can be paid, how much a bushel of wheat should cost, how schools are funded; none of which is in the Constitution as powers the federal government should have. Those are all things that, according to the 10^th Amendment, are the purview of the states or the people.

The Filibuster Fix

So if you don’t like the way the Senate is bogged down, instead of taking the brakes off the car, how about dumping the junk in the trunk? The less minutia the federal government gets involved in (let’s start with health care), the less reason, reasonable Senators will have to filibuster.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Dazed and Confused

by Bill O'Connell on January 21, 2010

Share and Recommend:

Has President Obama lost the one skill he has relied upon so heavily? Has the magic oratory suddenly gone leaden as indicated by his campaign speech for Martha Coakley?

“Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country — the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” Mr. Obama said. “People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.” — New York Times, “Obama Trying to Turn Around his Presidency.” – 1/21/2010

Really? “…what’s happened over the last eight years.” Is he kidding me? Does he not remember that Bush was reelected four years ago. Is this just one more elitist swipe at the “stupid” American people who are so dumb that they don’t even know things are bad for four years such that they reelect their president? When is he going to get off the campaign trail and start governing? When, with one-fourth of his term over, is he going to realize this is his gig now, and stop crying about Bush? The anti-Bush attacks against Scott Brown by Coakley in the closing days of the campaign fell flat. That doesn’t work anymore. This isn’t about the last eight years, but about the last twelve months. The American people are sick of the Democrats trying to spend us into oblivion.

It seems that he may be betting the ranch on the State of the Union address, which runs the risk of Obama fatigue. President Obama seems to confuse speeches with leadership. Coming into office with zero executive experience, he let the inmates (Pelosi and Reid) run the asylum. With the election of Scott Brown, Reid just lost his iron grip and Pelosi may not be far behind. So what does Obama do? Give another speech? He has given more speeches than any president in memory, but there is time for talk and time for action. But he seems to avoid holding another press conference as the fawning press may be finding its backbone and he doesn’t have an answer for his C-Span promises on the health care debate.

Boxed In

Reid is losing control of the Senate. He no longer has a filibuster proof majority and he will probably not get reelected. He is one very lame duck. Many of Pelosi’s party in the House see Brown’s stunning victory as a major wake up call. Any Democrat in the House who is not planning on retiring, will not be eager to sign on to any more far left government takeovers. So without Reid and Pelosi setting his agenda, and him still stuck in the anti-Bush mode, what can he do? As charming as he may be, he promised bipartisanship but really wasn’t serious about it, he hasn’t cultivated any relationships with conservatives. As Dennis Miller put it on O’Reilly last night, “I hope he’s an ideologue. If not, it means we have a dolt in the White House.”

President Obama has to realize that the job entails more than him just strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage, and get down to work and that means following Clinton’s lead and working with the Republicans. There are a lot of ways to improve Health Care without spending a trillion dollars (e.g., tort reform), stop bashing business when you need business to create jobs, drop cap and trade to fix global warming when oranges are freezing in Florida.

His inexperience continues to glow brightly. He better figure out what the job entails, quickly, and get busy with it. The referee just fired the gun signaling the end of the first quarter and Team Obama looks dazed and confused. Not a good sign, sports fans.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

New Year’s Day 2010 – A New Decade of Hope and Change

by Bill O'Connell on January 1, 2010

Share and Recommend:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution is an interesting piece of work. The way the Constitution is written is to explicitly state what the national government could do, and thereby exclude it from doing everything else. When some of the Founding Fathers advocated a Bill of Rights the federalists strongly objected. Why? First, they thought it was redundant. If, for example, the Constitution did not say the national government could regulate speech then having a First Amendment guaranteeing the Freedom of Speech made no sense. The national government was only permitted to do precisely what the Constitution said it could do.

The second objection concerned having the opposite intent of the original writing of the Constitution. You see, if the constitution has a provision that says what the national government cannot do (First Amendment barring free speech for example) it implies that the national government can do anything else that is not prohibited, which is exactly what the federalists did not want the Constitution to say. It wanted to specifically enumerate the powers granted to the national government and no more. So they compromised by adding the Tenth Amendment, which spelled out that distinction. To quote Hamilton in Federalist 84:

“Why, for instance should it be said that the liberty of the press should not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

The Federal Government’s Runaway Growth

The federal government has expanded enormously particularly with FDR and the New Deal. The Supreme Court has paid scant attention to the Tenth Amendment in curbing that expansion. Perhaps it is time they gave it a closer look and more weight in their decisions.

Below is what the Constitution says Congress has the Power to do.

Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To:

Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
To Borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Apportionment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; — And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Does anybody see anything there about minimum wages? miles per gallon? housing subsidies? urban development? education? energy? James Madison summed it up thus in Federalist 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce;….The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

To see how far we have come from Madison’s and the other Founding Fathers views can be seen in the New Deal era court case Wickard v. Filburn(1942). Roscoe Filburn was a farmer during the Great Depression who was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The Federal Government had imposed limits on how much wheat a farmer could grow based on acreage in order to prop up wheat prices. The amount of wheat that Filburn was growing exceeded this number, however, Filburn intended to use the wheat entirely on his own farm. Not only was the wheat not going to leave his home state, it was not going to leave his farm! But the Supreme Court ruled that by growing more wheat than allowed, Filburn would not have to buy additional feed in the open market and by not doing so the lack of his consumption of wheat on the market would adversely affect the price of wheat, therefore he was violating the Federally imposed limits. Now if that doesn’t set off Tenth Amendment alarm bells, I don’t know what could.

Federal Government Sprawl

Here are the cabinet level departments of the Federal Government. Those in bold seem, in my opinion, to be consistent with the enumerated powers above. Those in italics seem, again in my opinion, to be a national government overstepping its Constitutional bounds. It is not that each and any of these things should not be done at all, but according to the Tenth Amendment should be at the discretion of the states or local government.

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security (Incorporate in Department of Defense)
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of the Interior
Department of the Treasury
Department of Transportation
Department of Veteran Affairs (Incorporate into Department of Defense)

Federalism

One of the brilliant ideas of federalism is the ability to vote in two ways. One, is at the ballot box and the other is with your feet. If my state puts forth a bad idea and the majority of the citizens of my state agree with the bad idea, I have the freedom to move to another state. However, if we keep moving all these bad ideas up to the national level, my right to vote with my feet is taken away. If states like California and New York choose to follow polices that lead to their bankruptcy, so be it, but let’s not force those policies on Texas and Florida or force the citizens of those states to pay for the mistakes of Californians and New Yorkers.

Since George Washington, who had four cabinet positions, we have added thirteen new cabinet departments and eliminated two and the ones eliminated did not go away, they simply became part of other government entities (e.g., Navy into Defense; Post Office into Postal Service). In other words our government is telling us that they have not solved a single problem for which one of these agencies were created since 1789, otherwise why wouldn’t that cabinet department be shut down, after ceremoniously giving all the key players well deserved gold watches? But Government encroachment marches on with the Obama Administration poised to devour one-sixth of the U.S. Economy into the Department of Health and Human Services. They tell us they know how to solve that problem. With their track record do you believe them? Perhaps it’s time to dust off the Tenth Amendment, and start putting a scalpel to the federal government rather than tying a bib around its bloated neck.

Let’s look to 2010 as the year we start taking back our government. Polls show how far out of touch our elected leaders are from the views of their constituents. It’s time to retire them from office. Let’s keep up the hard work and countdown to November 2010.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Pick My Pocket. Please!

by Bill O'Connell on December 28, 2009

Share and Recommend:

Who doesn’t love a freebie? Who does not get a thrill of good fortune by finding money in the street, no matter how insignificant the amount? We may not believe in the Tooth Fairy, but many of us believe we have a rich benevolent uncle, Uncle Sam, who is willing to lavish upon us his wealth if only we would ask. The sad truth is that Uncle Sam is not rich, but penniless and is running a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Health Care for $20

One of the major reasons that health care costs are rising out of control is that no one is minding the store. While Washington twists itself in knots to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic of health care, we have little to no say in how our health care dollars are spent. Our health care “insurance” system is not really insurance. Insurance is meant to protect us from a financial catastrophe. Going to the doctor for a checkup is not a catastrophe. Paying a $20 co-pay for that checkup is like finding money on the street. There is no way anyone can get a physical exam, except by a hooker, for $20. It is a good idea to get a physical checkup every year? Yes, then pay the bill and ask what you are paying for and make sure you need it. You take your car in for service don’t you? Do you file an insurance claim when you do? Can you get it done for $20. Let’s get real. What we have is called third party payer and when someone else is picking up the tab, do we care what it costs? Really? But someone is picking up the tab. Look in your other pocket, because you are. If you are generally healthy and you get your annual checkup, your insurance premium (here in New York at least) will probably run around $10,000 per year. But, hey, you only paid $20 for that physical! What if you paid the full amount for the physical, say, $500. What if your insurance premium was cut to $5,000 because you would pay most routine medical costs out of your pocket and what if you could put the $4,500 left over ($10,000 original premium, minus $5,000 current premium, minus $500 cost of checkup), into a tax free account that can be used for future medical expenses or retirement if you don’t use it? If you are a young person and stay healthy into your mid-40s, you would have accumulated over $90,000 in your medical savings account and you still have catastrophic insurance coverage and the government stays out of the picture.

Retirement for Free

Like many well intentioned Government programs, Social Security, enacted during the Great Depression, seemed like a good idea at the time. When enacted there was about 15 workers paying in for each recipient drawing out. Today there are about a little over 3 workers paying in for each beneficiary. Bernie Madoff would blush at the audacity of it. On top of that the money that is paid into Social Security can only be “invested” in Treasury Securities so the return is lousy, but safe. People reacted to Social Security by saving less because the government safety net was there. Had people been encouraged to save for their own retirement, they would not be leaving their children this legacy of a ticking time bomb. So today, many young people feel the government’s hand in their pocket when they look at the FICA line on their pay stub, but don’t believe they will ever get a penny back. Nice concept.

Bring Home the Bacon!

What’s the measure of a good Congressman or Senator? Bringing home pork for the district, no? If you are like me, you get flyers every year or several times per year, touting how Congresswoman Jones obtained federal funding for that pier at the amusement park. With 435 Congressmen you can count on this, for each $1 that your Representative brings home $434 leaves the Treasury for each of the other Congressional districts and probably more, depending on the power and seniority of your Representative. Guess who’s paying for that Turtle Crossing in Florida? that bridge to nowhere in Alaska? that airport in Johnstown, PA that no one uses? That’s right, you are. What if we decided locally if we really needed a pier at the amusement park, and if we did, pay for it ourselves? Then we could let the people of Florida decide if they want to build a turtle crossing, the people of Alaska decide if they wanted a bridge to nowhere and the people of Pennsylvania decide if they wanted an airport that no one used. Then we could cut federal taxes by an equal amount to keep them out of mischief and help us pay for these projects if we really wanted them.

Let’s Get Organized

There was a time in our history where labor unions performed a valuable service. In those times when many industrial jobs were unskilled or semi-skilled, employers could dismiss someone on a whim and replace them within the hour. Unions gave those workers some counterbalancing power and fairer treatment. Today, we have a much more sophisticated economy and workers have more skills and mobility. Union membership has declined accordingly, in the private sector at least. Why is union membership still growing in the public sector? What is different about workers in the public sector that they still need unions? Are we suggesting that all government workers are unskilled? Why do teachers need a union? Are they not skilled such that they could sell their services to the highest bidder? Why do unions fight merit pay for teachers? Why are school principals, the de facto CEO of the school and who in New York easily make six figures, unionized? Do you get an idea why our K-12 public school system is trailing the world in performance?

In Michigan, privately owned small businesses that provided day-care services suddenly discovered that they were part of a union and union dues were being withheld from their government contractual payments.

Ms. Berry owns her own business—yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients. Those dues are funneled to a public-employee union that claims to represent her. The situation is crazy—and it’s happening elsewhere in the country.

Ms. Berry, runs “The Berry Patch” a private day care center she operates from her home catering to low income clients. The money that was once paid to her, now goes to a union that does little for her. She is “self employed and wants nothing to do with the union.” Don’t you think we need more of these tactics in America? Card Check anyone?

Going Postal

And let’s not forget the Postal Service. As postal rates are again scheduled to increase on January 4, let’s look at this paragon of efficiency, that is actually authorized by the Constitution. In 2008, the Postal Service lost $3 billion, and the Postmaster General John Potter pulled down $800,000 in compensation including $135,000 in incentive bonuses. What do we have to pay this guy if he actually breaks even? Also, let us not forget this is also a very heavily unionized operation.

Don’t Worry, You Won’t Feel a Thing

During World War II, FDR needed to raise more revenue to pay for the war. Fearing a backlash, his team hit upon the idea of payroll withholding. Knowing the potential backlash that would result when taxpayers had to write that big check on April 15th, he rightly figured that if he took a little bit each week, he could take a lot more in total. Statists in Washington have never looked back. It’s like the tax that was imposed on telephone service to pay for the Spanish American War that is still in place today. Instead of picking our pockets every week, what do you think most Americans would say about the size of the federal government if they had to write one big check on April 15th? There would be no tax rebates, because there would be no tax withheld. Do you think Americans would force Congress to sharpen their pencils and scale back the size of government?

Help is On the Way

Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help!’” But perhaps the best example of how far from our founding principles our government has strayed comes from Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut as she spoke during a House End of Year Wrap Up Session:

“This House–we understand, we’re there,” she said. “You can count on us because we believe that it’s our moral responsibility to make sure that you and your family need our help.”

I don’t know about you, but I don’t need the House of Representatives making sure I need their help. I need as little interference as possible from them. Their meddlesome intrusions in our lives is killing what made this country great. It is a point we cannot make often enough.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

Remember the 23rd!

by Bill O'Connell on November 6, 2009

Share and Recommend:

Conservatives, do not lose heart. Tea Party people, stand firm. Like many great turning points in history, they often involve an historic battle that is lost. The Alamo. Remember the Maine. Dunkirk. Pearl Harbor. 9/11. What they do instead is rally the troops, get them fired up and motivated.

The Battle

In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, the aloofness of the professional pols came to a head. It was the epitome of a recent Rasmussen poll that said 74% of Republicans said their elected leaders were out of touch with the base. On the Democratic side, the opposite was the case were most Democrats felt their elected leaders held similar views to their own. So what happened in the special election in New York’s 23rd district?

Republican party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava to defend a seat that has been Republican since the Civil War. Ms. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-”reform in workers ability to organize”, pro-gay marriage, pro-Obama stimulus package, and endorsed by the Working Families Party, an ACORN front group. That was more than conservatives could stand. Doug Hoffman threw his hat in the ring, conservatives from around the country rallied to him, and Scozzafava eventually dropped out of the race and threw her support behind…the Democrat!!

So the race was between a Democrat and a Conservative, with the Republican candidate a footnote. The Democrat prevailed by about 5% and picked up a seat for Nancy Pelosi.

The Talking Heads

The liberals started rubbing their hands and crowing over the Republican party self-destructing. I see it differently.

In a Gallup poll, 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative, 20% described themselves as liberals. That leaves 40% in the middle. The prevailing wisdom among the Republican Party leadership is that we need to run “moderates” and have a big tent to win elections. I say, do the math.

If you need 50% to win the election, and many times you don’t, then run a conservative candidate. You will start off with the 40% that call themselves conservative, and then you only need to win 25% of the middle to put you over the top. (40% in the middle x 25% = 10%; 40% conservative base plus this 10% = 50%).

Liberals have the tougher job. Starting out with only a base of 20% self-described liberals, they need to win 3/4 of the middle to get to 50% and win. It’s even tougher for them because they typically have to go hard left to win the primary and then try to swim upstream to get back in the middle without anyone noticing.

Putting Elections on a Platter

So what has been the strategy of the Republican Party leadership? Run moderates, because “we can’t win elections with the conservative base alone.” That’s true but neither can the Democrats win with just their liberal base and as I just proved, theirs is the tougher job. But when you run moderates, here’s what happens. A good portion of the conservative base stays home, disgusted. So from starting with 40%, you maybe now have a 20% base. You just let the Democrats pull even. Now you have to win not 25% of the middle but half of the middle. Let’s say the middle is a continuum from almost conservative to almost liberal. If Republicans keep their base, then they can just go after the middle group that is “almost” conservative. If they alienate their base then they have to get every vote in the middle that is the least bit conservative and maybe some liberals. On the flip side, if they keep their base by running conservative candidates, that forces the Democrat to get all the liberals, all moderates, and some who lean conservative, to capture 3/4 of the middle. After going hard left to get nominated, that is an almost impossible task.

Don’t Let Obama Fool You

Obama’s election had an historical element to it that we are not likely to see again. He is an incredibly good speaker, that is, until you realize that is all he is. Put up a moderate like McCain, and it was no contest. The only time it became interesting was when McCain picked Palin, which got the base energized. But the McCain campaign completely mismanaged bringing Palin on board, and the moment was lost.

Remember the 23rd!

So, conservatives have to rally and the Republican leadership has to pay attention. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, “Don’t go wobbly.” Start putting conservatives on the field and turn the tide of the battle.

The next battle is Florida where Charlie Crist…better update his resume, there is a new kid in town, named Marco Rubio and he’s a conservative.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Time to Go, Hillary

by Bill O'Connell on August 17, 2009

Share and Recommend:

From being the foregone conclusion as the first woman President of the United States in 2008 to a marginalized, snarky misrepresentative of the United States, it time for her to realize, the band stopped playing and everyone has gone home but her. It’s time to call it a day and resign.

Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer

Proving, once again, he is the master of hardball politics, Barack Obama dangled the Secretary of State job in front of his vanquished rival. She took the bait. No more would she be a force in the Senate able to challenge Obama at the first stumble. She was now part of the problem, not a potential solution. Once ensconced at Foggy Bottom, she thought she enhance her image by holding the most prestigious post in the Cabinet. But she again underestimated Barack Obama.

He proceeded to divvy up foreign policy among many advisers, undercutting Hillary every step of the way. She’s no fool, she can see it and it is eating away at her, to the point where she is becoming a gaffe machine to rival Joe Biden.

She’s No Condoleezza Rice

Upstaged by her husband in North Korea, negotiating the release of the journalist hostages, she was asked what her husband thought about another matter while in Africa. In a similar situation, Condoleezza Rice, would have handled that with aplomb and not become rattled. But here is Hillary’s response. Hillary Snaps. Smacking down a questioner on the world stage? Well that will surely “correct” our image as the Ugly Americans.

The Apology Tour Continues

She goes on to make a speech in Nigeria and wants to emphasize that there is no place in the world for corrupt elections. A very good point to make, that few could argue with. But what does she use as an analogy? She openly suggests that Jeb Bush fixed the 2000 Presidential election for his brother. Of all the analogies of corrupt elections that she could have used, let’s see, Iran? Cuba? the old Soviet Union? she points to the oldest democracy in history and suggest that we are as corrupt as any third world dictator. Hillary Compares U.S. Elections to Third World Corruption. Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who endorsed Hillary to take his Senate seat, must be turning over in his grave. He used to staunchly defend the United States at the UN and here his protege is saying we are no better than the worst of them.

In Honduras, the rule of law is being followed to prevent a Chavez style dictator from taking over that country, and who does Hillary and the Obama administration support? The Chavez puppet. What about standing up for democracy in our Hemisphere? It is time for her to go.

The Gore Thing in 2000

Let’s get this straight one more time. On election night 2000, Gore lost Florida. He lost the recount. He lost the re-recount. He lost the re-re-recount. He lost the official recount. He lost the private recount sponsored by newspapers.

Their count showed that Bush’s razor-thin margin of 537 votes — certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State’s office — would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

“In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States,” said Mark Seibel, the paper’s managing editor. “I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked.” — CNN

If Democrats and their radical supporters want to salve their wounds with this myth, live the fantasy. But don’t smear this country with these lies while acting as our chief diplomat.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

$787 Billion Porkulous Bill Breakdown

by Bill O'Connell on July 3, 2009

Share and Recommend:

Baby's Not Happy About the Stimulus Bill She's Stuck With

The colorful brochure arrived in the mail today titled, “Fighting For Long Island.” In it Congressman Tim Bishop extols the virtues of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and how much bacon he brought home for the district. Inside the folder is a map of the 1st Congressional District with callout balloons showing all the locations where stimulus money will land. On first blush one is tempted to think, good job Congressman! But then I reached for the calculator.

By the Numbers

If you take the $787 billion and divide it by the 535 members of Congress (425 Congressman and 100 Senators) the stimulus bill works out to $1.47 billion per member. That’s a lot of dough. I then took out my calculator and tallied up all the monies on the map that “CONGRESSMAN TIM BISHOP Delivers Economic Recovery Funds To Long Island.” Just to be sure, I checked my numbers three times and the projects added up to $274 million. That’s not good. That means that our Congressman brought home less than 19% of his share, which means that a lot more backslapping members of Congress got more than their share. Throw into the mix that every Republican voted against the bill and probably were not considered too kindly on the receiving end, then we really got short changed.

Money In vs. Money Out

Although there are many people who like to believe that Uncle Sam is really some independently wealthy tycoon who showers his nieces and nephews with his largess, the sad reality is that the money all comes from us. So I wondered how much do we send to the Treasury?

The federal government does a pretty good job of concealing how taxes are broken down by congressional district, which is understandable as accountability at election time can be problematic. In 2004 the First Congressional District in New York ranked 60th in the nation in average income tax liability per tax return, at $8,310 per return. What percentile is that? Let’s see 60 out of 435 comes out to be about the 14th percentile, well above the midpoint. How much stimulus did our esteemed representative bring home? Somewhere around the 81st percentile well below the midpoint. So the bottom line is that our Congressman voted to have his constituents pay a very large share of stimulus money that will go to every other part of the country, while we spend years working off the debt. Brilliant!

Historically, New York gets about $0.79 from the federal government for every $1 that New Yorkers pay in taxes. So why do New Yorkers keep overwhelmingly electing Democrats to Congress who love to increase taxes that ultimately end up being sent to other states? Who are they working for (perhaps themselves)?

The Stimulus Was Really About Jobs

So let’s not get bogged down in costs when it’s jobs we’re really talking about. After all, passing the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate at 8% instead of 9% without it. Oops, it’s already at 9.5% and climbing.

Of all the projects identified on the map of the district, one had an actual figure, in bold, stating that it would create 1,000 jobs. That’s a nice figure, but let’s put it in perspective. There are about 233,000 people employed in the district. At a 9.5% unemployment rate that would mean about 22,135 jobs have been lost in this recession. So creating 1,000 jobs equates to about 0.4% employment. The particular project that was identifed with creating these 1,000 jobs was getting $184.3 million in stimulus money or two-thirds of all the stimulus in the district. That works out to us spending $187,300 per job created. Call me a conservative, but somehow I think that if we cut taxes by $184.3 million we would create a lot more than 1,000 jobs. But what we will have to do is raise taxes to cover the $184.3 million that we are spending to create these jobs which will probably turn right around and kill them or an equivalent number.

What Federalism Means to Me

Here is a “top ten” list of stimulus projects compiled by Senator Tom Coburn [R-OK]:

“Free” Stimulus Money Results in Higher Utility Costs for Residents of Perkins, Oklahoma
FutureGen: The Stimulus Earmark that Wasn’t, Becomes the Costliest Pork Project in History
Little-Used “Shovel-Ready” Bridges in Rural Wisconsin Given Priority Over Widely Used Structurally Deficient Bridges
$800,000 for little-used Johnstown, Pennsylvania airport to repave a back-up runway; the “Airport for Nobody” Has Already Received Tens of Millions in Taxpayer dollars
$3.4 Million for Wildlife “Eco-Passage” in Florida; Project Still May Take Years to Finish
Nevada Non-Profit Gets Weatherization Contract After Being Fired For Same Work
Non-Existent Oklahoma Lake in Line for Over $1 Million To Construct a New Guardrail
Taxpayers Taken for a Ride: Nearly $10 Million to be Spent to Renovate a Century Old Train Station that Hasn’t Been Used in 30 Years
Ten Thousand Dead People Get Stimulus Checks, Social Security Administration Blames a Tough Deadline
Town of Union, New York, Encouraged to Spend Money It Did Not Request For a Homelessness Problem It Does Not Have

Now if someone in Florida (No. 5) want to spend $3.4 million for a wildlife “eco-passage” (i.e., roadway tunnel for turtles) project, fine. The good people of Florida can pay for it. If the people of John Murtha’s district want to spend $800,000 (No. 4) to repave a backup runway in Johnstown, fine. Let those folks pay for it.

If it doesn’t cross a state line, or have a benefit for ALL Americans, it’s not the federal government’s business. That is my litmus test for federalism. There is nothing more idiotic than having me pay for your project while you pay for mine. Because it comes down to a perpetual power grab where those who stay in the government the longest get everyone to pay for their projects (so their constituents will re-elect them) and everyone else gets the bill. Just ask yourself how many federal functions have been moved to West Virginia (Robert Byrd 50+ years in the Senate). How much pork goes in to John Murtha’s district (38 years in Congress).

Spinning it for All it’s Worth

So look for the brightly colored brochure from your Congressman crowing about how many stimulus dollars they brought home, but just remember, if your Congressman hasn’t been serving for 20 years, he or she probably got fleeced and you got screwed. Enjoy holding the bag.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →

Florida

Tim Bishop, Do You DISCLOSE?

The Senate is Broken, Or Is It?

Dazed and Confused

New Year’s Day 2010 – A New Decade of Hope and Change

Remember the 23rd!

Time to Go, Hillary

$787 Billion Porkulous Bill Breakdown

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll