Browsing the archives for the Governor tag.

Your Tax Dollars Hard At Work

2010 Election, Economy, Fiscal Crisis, Health Care, Liberty, Obama, Taxes

The US Postal Service is contemplating increasing postage rates and eliminating Saturday delivery.  Really?  They lost approximately $4 billion last year.  But don’t worry the CEO got a bonus.  It is reported that their labor costs, heavily unionized, exceed 80% of revenues.  Did you know that the only place where unionization is growing is in the public sector?  Union representation in the public sector surpassed the private sector for the first time this year.

But don’t worry, President Obama has a handle on it.  He appointed Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union to the board to figure out how to reduce the deficit.  Do you see a problem between these two news items?  Can you see a problem with the objectives of an Andy Stern and you and me?

As a side note, Rick Perry just won the Republican primary for governor of Texas and in his campaign he used no yard signs, no phone banks, and no direct mail.  As one comentator said “paper is dead.”

I know this is completely anecdotal, but my local post office just completed an expansion project increasing the size of the building.  I have noticed more than one post office being expanded as well.  Again, this is just my limited, personal observation, not a scientific study, but with the drop in mail volume, “paper is dead”, $4 billion in losses, performance bonuses for lackluster performance, heavy unionization, am I being unreasonable in thinking the government couldn’t handle health care even if it was a good idea?

No Comments

Help Wanted: Chief Executive in the White House

Bailouts, Economy, Fiscal Crisis, Health Care, Liberty, Obama, Politics, Taxes

President Obama has just created a panel to figure out how to get our debt under control.  Even when he makes a decision, such as this one, it is to pass the buck to someone else to do the heavy lifting.  His attempt to overhaul health care turned into the Harry and Nancy Show.  Obama campaigned and gave speeches while Pelosi and Reid shut out the Republicans and created the bill that could not be passed.  Obama is now trying to put lipstick on that pig, by calling for a bipartisan meeting.  But instead of starting over and getting ideas from everyone, they are basically going to pick over the stinking corpse of the bill that the Democrats could not get passed.  It is obvious that the real objective is to either get some Republicans to sign on or to use the meeting as a club to beat the Republicans as the “party of No.”

Stop Me Before I Spend

This president can’t seem to control himself and he finds that he painted himself into a corner.  If he tries to raise taxes on those who make less than $250,000 per year he will be breaking a major campaign promise.  If he stops spending on his own, he will lose the left which is about the only support he has remaining.  So he calls in Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to co-chair a committee charged with making the president a tailor made fig leaf, to allow him to cut spending and raise taxes, while shrugging his shoulders and saying, “I can’t go a gainst the excellent advice of this august commission.”

If he wants to cut spending, he can just cut spending.  He doesn’t need a commission to do so.  How about an across the board spending freeze, except for national defense, until the the economy grows enough to balance the budget and not with gimmicks like increasing discretionary spending now 24% and then saying you will freeze that same spending for the next threee years?  How about freezing government hiring?  How about returning $500 billion in unspent stimulus money and $400 billion in repaid TARP money, plus interest, to the Treasury?  Don’t hold your breath.  That would require someone with executive experience who knows how to make a decision, rather than deliberating, like a legislator.  Sarah Palin comes to mind, as does George Bush (I & II), Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan.  These experienced executives knew how to put together a budget and make decisions.  Chris Christie in New Jersey was just sworn in last month as governor and he immediately identified the problem as too much spending and got to work cutting it back.  All that President Obama seems to know how to do is talk. 

If we start advertising now, we may get enough resumes to review to find a replacement by 2012.

1 Comment

Trapped by His Own Gift

Obama, Politics, Race

Daniel Henninger wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells of congratulating freshman Sen. Obama on a phenomenal speech. Without a hint of conceit, Mr. Obama replied, “Harry, I have a gift.”

In the article he also describes this observation:

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me.”

That’s essentially how he got elected.  With a heaping helping hand from the popular media, many people saw Obama as a blank screen upon which they could project their own views and see those as Obama’s own.  He’s our man!  He listens.  He cares deeply.  For a politician it is a phenomenal gift.  For a legislator it is an extremely valuable gift.  For an executive it is poison.

Pulling the Trigger

As a politician or a legislator you are in the role of persuader; somebody else makes the decision to vote for you or vote with you, respectively.  As an executive you are in the role of the decider.  You must make a decision and every decision, especially the tough ones are going to make a good many people unhappy.  Perhaps that explains why, in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted “Present” so many times.  Voting “Present” rather than “Yea” or “Nay” allowed him to hold that special place where everyone felt he agreed with them.  Too many decisions one way or another would have tarnished “the gift”.  So why is “the gift” poison for an executive?  If you don’t have “the gift” and you make a decision your opponents may disagree with you, but they are not surprised.  If you have “the gift” and you make a decision, those on the short side feel betrayed and angry, because they thought you agreed with them and then “sold out” and decided the other way.

Obama is in a tight spot where he has to make decisions and decisions have consequences.  When you make a decision it is very hard to make it seem like everyone got their way.  His complete lack of executive experience is telling.  If he had some executive experience, such as a mayor or a governor, he might have had enough practice learning how to make his decisions appear to satisfy everyone, as his campaign speeches did.  But that’s the thing about decisions.  If everyone supports them, they’re not much of a decision, like deciding to pardon a turkey on Thanksgiving.  Everyone enjoys the decision, but it’s really not what we elect presidents for.

I’ll Have the Waffles, Please

If you watch closely, you can see that Obama is struggling to preserve “the gift”.  He said he is for closing Guantanamo, but not yet.  He is for pulling out of Iraq, but no timetable.  The general he put in charge of Afghanistan, McChrystal, said he needed 40,000 more troops, but Obama could not bring himself to say yes or no.  He had to ponder, think, consult, weigh alternatives, and three months later, he gave McChrystal what he asked for.  Those on the left complained that he was not pulling out.  Those on the right complained that he wasted precious time while our troops were on the battlefield.  His backers tried to give him the fig leaf of showing gravitas.   He can’t seem to find the magic formula where everyone applauds him.  From “the gift” he has gone to “the anti-gift”.  Instead of satisfying everyone, he is finding that he is satisfying no one.

Move On

It’s time for Obama to “Move On”.  He should put “the gift” in his trophy case right next to his Nobel Peace Prize.  It got him to the White House.  How much more can he ask of such a thing?  So drop the pretense.  We all know he is a hard left guy, so he should just be who he is.  He may suddenly face a more hostile press, or they may love him more, although that would be hard to believe.  But when he makes a decision he will at least please his base, and then his opponents can fight his statist goals without being branded as racists.  As a hard left guy he will probably not get re-elected because America is not a hard left country, on the contrary the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative.  But by choosing he can try to do what he can within one term.  It will be a battle. Obama’s poll ratings have dropped steadily since his inauguration and the Democrats are likely to lose seats in Congress this fall.  As an old acquaintance once said to me, “It’s like standing in the middle of the road.  Choose left or choose right, but choose; otherwise you get hit by traffic coming in both directions.”

No Comments

Does Obama Make Decisions About Anything?

Liberty, National Security, Obama, Politics

Reading one of the liberal pundit’s pan of Sarah Palin’s new book and how the reviewer harps on her inexperience, anyone with a room temperature IQ cannot help but ask, what about the guy who won?  You can say she had little executive experience, only two years as governor of Alaska and two terms as mayor of 7,000 resident Wasilla.  But while one may argue she had little executive experience, he had none.  For that matter, neither did McCain or Biden.  Legislative experience?  Sure.  Executive experience? No, and it shows.

Decisions, Decisions

What has he actually made a decision on?  The economy?  The porkulus package that is “saving” so many jobs, was put together by Pelosi.  It was as if she brought it to him and said, “Here, sign,” and he did.  Health care?  He talked a great deal about it, but five or more proposals sprouted from different committees and like a demolition derby, banged around until there was one left, dented, but still moving.

Guantanamo?  Iraq? Afghanistan?  A decision, no, no, no, we need to ponder and confer more. Despite putting the commander, McChrystal, in place, Obama can’t seem to agree or disagree with his recommendation.  And now, the granddaddy of them all, trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York.

Who’s the Boss?

This is what Barack Obama said:

“‘This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision.”

Er, no.  This is a decision for the Commander in Chief.  Don’t slough it of on some underling, no matter how lofty his title, so that at some future date you can put the blame on him.  As Harry Truman (D) said, “The buck stops here.”  It’s time, Mr. President, to step in, assert your constitutional authority and put a stop to this.  The military tribunals were set up and authorized by Congress for just this purpose.  It’s time to do the right thing.  You took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to bow to your left wing base. 

 After 9/11, President Bush kept us safe  for seven and half years.  Less than a year into your presidency, we have had the worst terrorist attack on our soil since then.  This was preventable.  But we are already starting down the slippery slope of liberal happy talk and putting all Americans in harm’s way.  Consider this, if the jihadists had their way and actually defeated us and took over, the first place they would go to slaughter the devils would be Hollywood.  If you don’t want to protect America because it’s what you took an oath to do, then do it to save your Hollywood friends from themselves.

No Comments

Enemy of the State

Bailouts, Bias, Economy, Fiscal Crisis, Health Care, Liberty, Media, Obama, Politics, Taxes

Just when you thought this administration had gone about as far as it could go in turning America into the old Soviet Union another subtle clue is revealed.  When you craft legislation that is over a thousand pages long and you try to slam it through before anyone can read it, all kinds of creepy things come crawling out when you turn the lights on.  This is from the White House’s blog:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

Turn in your neighbor?  Does this not sound like Cuban block watchers in Castro’s worker’s paradise?  Is your name in their database?  If you apply for a government job, do you think you might run into a “problem”?  Will the IRS come knocking on your door to audit you?  If this doesn’t send chills up your spine, you are made of sterner stuff than me.

What’s really Fishy?

To be fair, everything this administration has said about health care, or is it health insurance, seems fishy?  So should all Americans be writing to the White House to complain?  Be careful, I am sure they are taking the names on both sides of the e-mail.  This Administration wants the First Amendment only to apply to the titan of the teleprompter.  But if you criticize the state, you are Astroturf, an unruly mob, crazed right-wing plants.  When do they send the goons in to break up the crowd and beat a few participants to send them a lesson.

Be Careful Before You Take a Bite Out of that Apple

The administration is touting the Cash for Clunkers program as a great success.  But as the auto dealers file for the rebates they are faced with this {emphasis added}:

“This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, Dot, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

This was widely reported by Glenn Beck and immediately the statists came forth to attack him as a right wing fanatic.  I also saw some insipid posts saying, “well how are they going to be able to do that?  I’ll smack anyone who tries to touch my laptop; that web site is only for the dealers, not for consumers, etc., etc.”  To that I say, read it for yourself and decide.  Perhaps, as some suggest, it was some overly aggressive government lawyer who was trying to protect…  Protect what?  Rebates?

The pattern is shocking and the pattern is clear.  If the government gives you TARP money, the government sets your salary.  If the government bails out and then takes over the car companies, the government will decide what kind of cars it will build and if it loses money for years (Amtrack, the Postal Service), the government can decide to keep them afloat to achieve their agenda.  Keeping all those UAW members on the government teat, will keep their votes in the Democratic column.  Now if you want a rebate, the government owns your computer.  Let’s see, is there any disparaging information about the Obama administration on there?  No rebates for your dealership and we’ll fire off an e-mail to flag@whitehouse.gov to boot.  And what about that reference to foreign agencies?

Barack Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky and he knows a thing or two organizing and defeating his opponents, not by logic or reason, but by attack and disinformation.  That is how dictators grab power.  Will we be able to do as our Founding Fathers did and stop the spread of this tyranny?  The recent town hall meetings with our legislators give me reason to hope that Americans are paying close attention and do not like what they see.

3 Comments

Can We Recover Our Money?

Obama, Politics

$18 Million for This?

$18 million folks, that’s how much the federal government is going to spend to improve the web site that tells us how they are spending the stimulus money. $18 million. They will be spending $9.5 through January, and another $8.5 million through 2014.  I don’t need a calendar nor a calculator to figure out that’s five years from now.  Are they trying to tell us now that this recession is going to last five years?

Stagnant Stimulus

If we remember President Obama and Vice President Biden telling us how urgently we needed the stimulus package and that there was no time to waste to avert a catastrophe.  Right now the unemployment rate with the stimulus is higher than they told us it would be if they did NOTHING.

Less than 10% of the stimulus money has been spent with most of it being transfers to state and local government.  The economy is showing signs of turning around on its own, and I say that because with such a small percentage of the stimulus having been spent it contributed little to the improving conditions.  So naturally, the political class is starting to talk about another stimulus package.  You would almost think that they wanted to drag this out.

Reminiscent of Roosevelt

Through the Great Depression, the steps that Roosevelt took didn’t turn the economy around.  Unemployment remained high until World War II absorbed every able bodied man into the armed forces.  Yet Roosevelt was elected to four terms in office.  Why?  The first three terms were through the Depression.  Although Roosevelt’s policies didn’t work, he knew how to communicate on a personal level.  He held “fireside chats.”  He, through the radio, came into people’s living rooms and soothingly assured them that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.  Trust Roosevelt, he will take care of us, he will see us through.

President Obama’s personal approval ratings continue to fly high, even as the wreckage of almost every campaign promise is strewn around the countryside.  He is certainly likable and his election is historic, but will that be enough to carry him as his inexperience is laid bare at every turn.  But, as the former governor of New York and Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt had executive experience.  Obama brought no executive experience with him.

Czars Aplenty

So who is running the government?  Obama had 16-18 Czars, depending on who is counting, who are not vetted by the Senate like Cabinet Secretaries and a host of other appointees are.  So where are the checks and balances?  Even Robert Byrd is concerned that the may be violating the Constitution.  If this weren’t so serious, you would think it was a pilot for a sitcom.  What aspect of this administration is not out of control?  Let’s hope we can all survive long enough to make it back to the voting booth.

No Comments

Beware the Barracuda

Politics

If anyone thinks that Sarah Palin is beaten and is about to become a footnote in history, I would say to them, “don’t bet the rent on it.”  In her address where she announced she was stepping down, she used a basketball analogy.  After all, it was on the basketball court where she got the name “Sarah Barracuda.”  She said what a good point guard does when facing a full court press is protect the ball, keep her head up with her eyes on the basket and she passes off at the right opportunity.  What she didn’t say was what happens next.  If anyone who watched Michael Jordan play knows, after passing off they don’t go sit on the bench.  They maneuver into position to make the big play and if you take your eye off of them, they’ll kill you every time.

The Full Court Press

In the last year Sarah Palin has been hit with eighteen ethics complaints.  Her record so far in these complaints is 15-0, with three still pending.  The results of these complaints have been a lot of needless time and money spent by state employees investigating these complaints and clearing her name every time.  The concern she expressed yesterday is that these are a distraction, a waste of state time and money robbing the people of Alaska of the limited government they deserve and it is also costing her family a fortune to defend.  As you can see below, one of the ethics complaints is that she is raising money to pay her legal fees.  So the full court press is throw every frivolous ethics complaint you can at her, complain if she tries to raise money to defend herself, bankrupt her if you can, and later you can complain that she spent too much time on these issues rather than on state business.  Here is a summary of the complaints:

  1. Troopergate — this one is the well known case where a state employee was fired for not doing his job.  It also involved her sister’s ex-husband.  The firing was deemed lawful.
  2. Palin was accused of helping someone get a job in state government.  I’m shocked, shocked that someone in politics actually helped someone get a job.  Complaint dismissed by state personnel board.
  3. Palin was accused of taking a public position on a mining ballot initiative days before the vote.  Wow, she actually took a position.  How refreshing for a politician.  Any issue about it taking place within days of a vote is our misguided “campaign finance reforms” that curtail our First Amendment rights in the name of better government.  Complaint rejected by the Alaska Public Public Offices Commission.
  4. Palin filed “self disclosure”  to get the Troopergate issue resolved once and for all.
  5. Complaint filed by employee union over the firing of Mike Wooton, the trooper in Troopergate.  Complaint dismissed.
  6. Monagan, the individual fired in the Troopergate ethics complaint against Palin asked for a hearing to clear his name.  The panel said there was no legal basis or jurisdiction for such a hearing.
  7. Complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission about the $150,000 the Republican Party spent for her wardrobe.  FEC said the expenditure was not banned.
  8. Palin charged with abuse of power for charging the state when her children traveled with her.  The personnnel board found no wrongdoing.  Palin agreed to pay $10,000 to the state to cover the costs.
  9. Palin was accused of conducting an interview in the Governor’s office about the Vice Presidential campaign.  Complaint dismissed by the state personnel board.  I guess she should have conducted the interview outside.  Let’s see, November in Alaska outside, perfect!
  10. Palin accused of violating ethics law for campaigning for Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss.  Dismissed by state personnel board.
  11. Complaint that Palin misused funds of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to promote her political ambitions by using advertisements featuring her.  Her crime was that she allowed the board to use her image and did so before she was picked by John McCain.  Complaint dismissed after a personnel board investigation.
  12. Complaint alleging interference in job hiring by an individual whose identity could never be verified.  The name used was that of a character in a British soap opera.  Palin’s attorney said that no one in  the state of Alaska could be found with that name and the filer refused to use a real name so the case was dropped.
  13. This and 14 allege that two employees on Palin’s staff worked on state time to help Palin before and after her Vice Presidential campaign.  This complaint is still pending.
  14. Same as 13 covering the other employee. Pending.
  15. Complaint Palin improperly used state property, time and equipment for partisan political purposes, including posting on the Governor’s web site that she was running for Vice President.  Dismissed as lacking merit by the state personnel board.
  16. Palin accused of a conflict of interest because she wore clothing with an “Arctic Cat” logo on it because Arctic Cat sponsored her husband’s team.  Dismissed.
  17. Complaint alleged that Palin’s work with a PAC violated ethics laws by misusing her position and accepting outside employment. Dismissed as lacking merit by the state personnel board.
  18. Complaint alleging Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by accepting money from the Alaska Fund Trust.  The fund was established by supporters to help Palin defray her $500,000 in legal bills run up by fighting all these ethics claims she keeps winning.  Brilliant strategy.  Hit her with baseless ethics claims and then fight her ability to pay her bills.  This is still pending.

Add to this the personal attacks by the likes of David Letterman, the recent Vanity Fair article and her enemies standing at the ready to file ethics complaints every time she tries to defend herself, let’s her opponents set the agenda.  If allowed unchecked for the next three years, no one could recover from that.  On top of that is her personal focus to do what is best for her state.  She does not want to waste state money and time on dealing with ethics complaints rather than governing, but these complaints have to be dealt with and they seem to be coming at a rate of about one every three weeks.  She defeats everyone of them but it is a drain.

An Unconventional Move

The pundits are saying this is the end of her career.  But let’s look at this.

  • By stepping down, the ethics complaints will stop.
  • The people of Alaska can have a government that is not wasting time on these issues.
  • Her legal bills will stop climbing
  • She can probably make $50,000 to $100,000 per speech on the speaking circuit and quickly pay off her legal bills
  • She can hit the campaign trail for Congressional and Senate candidates in 2010.  She is still very popular and a very successful fund raiser.  This will pile up political IOUs for 2012
  • She can speak out forcefully against the reckless policies of the Obama administration, raising her profile without complaint (ethics and otherwise) that she is neglecting her state duties.
  • She can work on burnishing her foreign policy credentials.  Remember she was only on the campaign trail for about 60+ days, trying to get in sync with John McCain’s positions while being mishandled by his staff.  Now she can stake out her own positions, carefully and thoughtfully

Is this a risky move?  Sure.  But to continue the basketball analogy, how conventional was Michael Jordan’s style of play?  He did things that no one ever saw coming.

The 2012 Campaign

Some pundits are saying that Mitt Romney probably can’t stop pinching himself with his new found good fortune.  Is that premature?  After all, he and Sarah Palin are basically in the same position.  They are both former governors.  Yes, it can be said that Romney finished his term in office while Palin is stepping down.  However, Romney as governor of liberal Massachusetts has some things on his resume that he would probably like to live down.  Palin accomplished a lot in a short time in office without the same albatrosses.  She is doing what she thinks is right for herself and for Alaska, not following some tired political playbook.  Her approval/disapproval rating among Republicans is 73/17 compared to Romney’s 57/18.

Brand New Ballgame

Not being in office allows her to set the agenda rather than having to react to other people’s agendas.  She doesn’t have to hold back.  Consider how Dick Cheney came out forcefully so speak against Obama’s policies when others in the Republican party were trying to find their voice.  His poll numbers rose dramatically.

Sarah Palin can speak with conservative principles that win elections.  When Republicans stick to their conservative roots they win.  When they try to be moderate they lose.  It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but I can see Palin having just passed off the ball driving to the basket while her opponents watch the ball, and soar into the air for the ally oop and the score.

No Comments

Liberty and Mobility

Liberty, Politics, Supreme Court

Movin' Out

One of the great blessings bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers was federalism. Our federal form of government evolved from the Aticles of Confederation, where states had primacy and the national government acted only with the consent of the states.  This proved to be too cumbersome.

In writing the Constitution, the Founders identified very specific roles and responsibilities for the national government and left everything else to the states or the people (see Tenth Amendment).  In doing so it gave the people the power of liberty through mobility.  If you didn’t like the way they did things in Massachusetts, you could move to Virginia.  If the people of Pennsylvania didn’t want a mass migration of people to Georgia, they needed to be careful regarding the laws that they passed so as not to alienate a large block of their constituents.

The War on Federalism

The statist, who loves government and believes government should control every aspect of our lives, hates federalism, because it weakens its control.  So they attack it through the courts.

Here is their standard battle plan.  Let’s the case of Gay Marriage.  Vermont’s legislature approves Gay Marriage.  Whether you are in favor of that or oppose that it shouldn’t affect you if you don’t live in Vermont.  If you are in favor and you live elsewhere, you can move to Vermont.  If you live there and are opposed you can either fight to overturn it in Vermont, or move elsewhere.  That’s the beauty of federalism.  If continued to its logical conclusion, some states would approve it and those in favor would migrate there, and those who are opposed would concentrate in states that would ensure that it would not be adopted in their state.  You could have a raging debate, but your liberty would be preserved through mobility.

However, the statists have a different view of things.  After the law is passed in Vermont by the legislature (as is proper), or made up out of thin air by the the court in Massachusetts (judicial activism and improper), some couples who are married in these states move to another state.  By doing so, they should leave their state sanctioned rights behind.  However, what they will typically do when their Vermont sanctioned rights are not honored in, say, Tennessee they will rush to federal court and says their Constitutional rights are being violated.  A court stocked with judicial activists, will find some fig leaf of justification with words like emanations and penumbras, to make a new law of the land and with the stroke of a pen, the liberties of all Americans will be swept away based on the will of the people of Vermont.  You no longer can protect your liberty through mobility.  You cannot go anywhere to live in proximity to like minded people and live the life you believe in.  Mobility is no longer a tool to protect your liberty it is a weapon against you.  People can secure rights elsewhere and use mobility to come to your doorstep and use the courts to force their beliefs on you.

Fierce Fighting

I believe that is why the fighting over these issues become so fierce and acrimonious.  If something is allowed anywhere, it will soon be allowed everywhere, because of an activist judiciary.  Our rhetoric has become more strident, our politics is anything but bipartisan, all because everthing is being elevated to the federal level.  States are becoming less and less important.  If you don’t believe it  ask people, who was responsible for the fiasco after hurricane Katrina?  If they say President Bush, ask them to name the mayor of New Orleans or the governor of Louisiana at the time. Bush and the federal government should have been the third line of defense, not the first.  The first should have been the city, then the state and then the federal government.

Back to Federalism

Show me where in the constitution it says the government should own General Motors and Chrysler.  Show me where it says that a tunnel, entirely in the city of Boston should be paid for by the taxpayers of Arizona.  Show me where in the constitution it says education is the responsiblity not of local government but the federal government.  It doesn’t.  And until well roll back this juggernaut, our liberties will be crushed little by little, day by day.

This is why it is also important to guard against activist judges getting on the bench or being elevated to higher levels of the court. It is just these activist judges who are taking away your liberty to move away from those who don’t believe what you do and moving toward those you do agree with.  Take note of the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

No Comments

Bipartisanship Begins At Home

Economy, Fiscal Crisis

New York, like many states, is in the midst of a state budget crisis.  The state is facing a $14 billion budget deficit.  The cause of the problem is pretty clear, too much spending.  State spending has grown far in excess of inflation and population growth.  What provided the wallop is the sharp downturn on Wall Street, which drastically cut revenues to the state.  But the state does not have any reserves to speak of.

We’re All in This Together, Right?

Everyone is being asked to tighten their belts.  The Democrats had previously held the State Assembly and now control both houses of the legislature and the governorship.  Among the strongest supporters of the Democrats in this very blue state are the labor unions.  They wholeheartedly support the spending increases that the Democrats propose every year especially where those increases shower wages and benefits on their members.

So while the Democrats, with no place to hide, are scrambling to close the budget gap why do I see commercial after commercial on television urging me to tell the governor and the legislature to make the necessary cuts elsewhere and not to touch their sacred cow.  The commercials are from the police unions, the teacher unions, the health care worker unions, the university professor unions, the public employee unions, all urging us to rise up and make sure the cuts are not directed at them.

Chutzpah

After years and years of spending increases under both Republicans and Democrats, and year after year of fat labor contracts for these unions because the politicians were too cowardly to confront them or turn down their money and electoral support, we are now in this mess.  But now instead of shouldering their share of the burden, some of which was a result of their greed, they are telling their fellow New Yorkers to take on more of the pain and spare them.  How about a little bipartisanship on behalf of the unions and suck it up and help your fellow New Yorkers carry the load you created.

Where’s Ronald Reagan when you need him?

No Comments

How the Pros Steal an Election

Politics

Who could forget, if the left would ever let us, the Florida brouhaha about Bush stealing the election?  The fact is that Bush won the election, he won the recount, he won the re-recount, and he not only won acording to a investigation by the Miami Herald and USA Today but according to that investigation if the rules that the Gore team wanted were applied, Bush’s margin of victory would have tripled.  But all you ever hear from the left is that Bush “stole” the election.  When it comes to stealing elections the Democrats are the pros.

In 2004, the race for the governorship of Washington state was very close with Republican Dino Rossi winning over Democrat Christine Gregoire by a mere 261 votes.  Under Washington law a vote that close requires a machine re-count.  The results of the hand recount was that Rossi won again, this time by 42 votes.  Rather than concede, the Democrats ponied up $800,000 for a hand re-count.  After that recount it showed Gregoire ahead by 129 votes.  Okay, shut it down, it’s over, we have a winner.  Due to the closeness of the race Rossi asked Gregoire to a runoff election.  Gregoire refused.  As she put it, “The bottom line is the election is over. Today we have a governor-elect. It’s time to move forward, and I am prepared to take on the people’s work.”  In King’s county, the final tally had 3,539 more votes counted than voters who participated in the election.

Fast forward to Minnesota.  When the election results came in Norm Coleman, the Republican won by just over 700 votes.  After the election, ballots started showing up in the trunk of cars; some districts were ruled that the election night votes were accurate, other districts were ruled the opposite;  a number of duplicate ballots were not marked duplicate as required and so were counted twice.  Many districts had the same situation as the Washington election where the numbers of votes tallied exceeded the number of voters.

So where is the outrage from the media.  Bush wins four out of four and he “stole” the election.  Gregoire and Franken lose the general election and some shady counting turns up in the recount or recounts (you have to keep recounting until the Democrat is ahead and then you immediately stop), where you have more votes than voters and everything it just fine.  Just like we have heard next to nothing about the Washington election these past four years, don’t expect to hear much from the press when Democrats steal an election.

No Comments
« Older Posts