Pasadena Politics

Due to working on a project, I have not been posting much.  However, I thought I would post this picture of a letter I received today from the US Department of Commerce.   I redacted the address information for privacy reasons.

Spread the wealth.

While driving home, I heard an interesting advertisement proposing to raise money to fight against Meg Whitman for California Governor.  It made me think of several things, one of them the recent Supreme Court Decision finally allowing US Corporations to enjoy their Second Amendment Rights and the Revelations that Anthropomorphic Climate Change is Junk Science at best and blatant fraud at worst.  Now, I don’t really know which Republican candidate is best at this point as I have been busy with other issues.  But any advertisement that claims you should oppose a candidate because they are a threat to State legislation built on the Junk Science of Anthropomorphic Climate Change catches my attention and rings warning bells in my mind.

So what is this Level the Playing Field dot com?  Good question.  WhoIs was unable to tell me as they chose to be anonymous.  Not a big issue there.   Following links through the site, it seems painfully obvious that the site avoids giving you contact information for a live person as well as mentioning sponsors.   Well, thankfully SFGate gives some information about the new site: Averell “Ace” Smith who handled the California campaign for Hillary Clinton and Chris Lehane, a former Clinton spokesman are mentioned as Senior Strategists.

“Level the Playing Field is one of three independent expenditure entities created to bolster 2010 Democratic campaign efforts in California. Such efforts, by law, are not associated with or directed by the Brown campaign. But they allow organizers to sidestep campaign fundraising limits with advertising that will assist Democrats.” – SFGate point.

This leads first to warning bell number two: Campaign Finance Laws.   This website is devoted to defeating a candidate.   Campaign Laws against corporations would have had no effect on this despite the Supreme Court Ruling, yet, how do you know who is donating money and even from what country they are from?  Where is the accountability on this site?   Oh, there is a check box to indicate you are a citizen, but it does nothing to verify that you are one.   Additionally, you see that the site the Donate link goes to is for www.actblue.com, or as their banner reads: ActBlue – The online clearinghouse for Democratic action.    The Fund-raising pages show John Edwards at the Top of the Fundraising Pages.   At the bottom of the section is a “Do it for Ted! Support Martha Coakley” link.   Poor link, it must be embarrassed.

So, we know this: leveltheplayingfield.com is supported by Clinton supporters who both happen to be Democrats.  We also know that ActBlue is a Democrat fundraising clearinghouse.    We also know that the site is geared towards asking Meg hard questions, questions such as: how do you plan to cut the budget, aside from cutting state worker jobs.  Of course this is actually a critical step towards cutting the budget – but as the SacBee reporter says this would be impossible and that: “Whitman has almost no contact with reporters who know something about the budget and could ask knowledgeable questions“   The irony about this is simple: Meg has enough intelligence to know these reporters only report based on agenda.  You can’t talk to them without having what you said and did not say, mean something grossly different and convenient to their world view.

I find it rather convenient that the SacBee article came out a day before the leveltheplayingfield.com radio blurb with both making the same accusation: she won’t talk to reporters and let the public know her.   Please note that the leveltheplayingfield.com site was registered Jan 20th 2010, which suggests the site was being planned before Feb 15th and that such radio spots take some time to put together and air.

Also along the theme is the: Don’t vote for her, she has money!  To which I should say: good for her.  She obviously got it from doing a better job than any Sacramento Politician.  Certainly e-Bay is more profitable than the State of California so her experience as an executive means a heck of a lot more than Jerry Brown’s experience.   If you follow the logic they apply, you should grab the homeless guy off the street and make him Governor.    But that is idiotic, you don’t vote for someone to pull you out of a fiscal crisis who has proven to be incapable or unwise in the handling of money, you vote for someone who has demonstrated wisdom and the capability to make money.   In the particular crisis we face in California, you should vote for the person who has the best record for making a profit and if the choice is between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman (and believe me, the whole point of leveltheplayingfield dot com is promoting Jerry Brown surreptitiously and in a most circuitous manner) you want the one with the best results.

Next is warning bell number one: “…special interests who want to roll back California’s bi-partisan law fighting Global Warming…“.   Now, I am all for that.    Actually, I am all for just about anything that contradicts the idiocy of Global Warming legislation and action.  That the press in the USA is pretty quiet about the whole collapse of Anthropomorphic Global Warming gives greater credence to claims that the Media is just a propaganda arm of Liberals in America.

Anyways my fellow Californians, watch out for the advertising.  It is already clear that the Media is against Meg simply because she was a successful business woman who does not view government as savior of the people.  It is now clear that the Democrat Party is starting to hurt in the Golden State and looking for ways to bolster their candidate any way they can – well, as long as it is not corporate money I suppose it is ok?

Edit: A short article pointing out the obvious: money buys advertising which does not automatically translates into votes.   This simple logic should have been obvious in the 2008 Presidential Election: McCain did not lose for a lack of money, but because he didn’t put enough effort into the campaign and getting the message out as to why he was the better candidate.   Plus he lacked something money could not buy: an ideologically sympathetic mass media.

Any claim that the first year of Obama’s Presidency and agenda was stalled by the Republican’s being Partisan or the “Party of No” is simply an untruth.    The reason is quite simple: even if the Republican’s wanted to obstruct, the Democrats in both the House and Senate held enough of a majority to blast any Filibuster attempt to dust.   Of course, the last month has changed a lot, but any excuse that blames the failure of Health Care reform or the failure of Cap and Trade on the Republicans is a blatant untruth.

It also reveals a very convenient short term memory or cynicism: The Republican Party being obstructionist between Jan 2009 and Jan 2010 is nothing compared to the Democrats obstructionism during the Bush years: Social Security Reform or Judicial Nominees anyone?

It is actually a very good question.

The answer to the question has everything to do with perspective.

For the Atheist, the answer is simple because by default they rule out anything greater than nature.   But the answer becomes more complicated depending on your belief system.   Since it is often against Christianity that the Atheist pits his belief system in this country, we will use it as the reference point.

Compared to other men man can be very good.   Certainly there are men better than others or worse than others.   Christianity even agrees with that.  But for the Christian the issue is not are you good compared to other men, the question is are you good compared to God.   The answer to that question is one that tends to put people on the defensive:  compared to God, no one is good.

So, sure, let the Atheists tout how good they are… compared to other men.

There is a certain irony in that Liberals claim to take from those with more to give to those with less and yet when they themselves have more give little of their own.

It did.   Anyone listening will have heard his common mixed message where he first sounds a conservative tone then contradicts it.

I will say this:  most of the current woes are Bush’s fault in-so-far as he signed the Legislation Obama and other Democrats Voted for.

Honestly, if Obama focuses on anything, it is guaranteed to fail.  Instead of changing their strategy to take into account the Conservative Brown victory in Massachusetts, they are doubling down on their far from spend-thrift agenda.  Instead of cutting costs, they are giving away money which, while nice, does nothing to generate income.   Which brings up this salient point: every job that the Federal Government creates by hiring Federal Employees, requires a larger number of people to be employed or increasing in income to support them.

Warning: rough calculations ahead

Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are approximately 2,016,800 employees and their average wage works out to: $74,403.00.  This would seem to mean that $150 Billion is spent on Federal Employees alone.  If the Average Median income is $50,000.00, then for single filers with no credits and the most basic refund will generate $5,050.00 in Fed. Taxes.   Social Security, Medicare, and FUTA are not included since those are, supposedly, marked for specific programs.    Therefore, it takes 15 workers to support just one active Federal Employee.

To support the current wage base, it would take 29,714,054 workers earning the average Median income to support the Federal Employees alone.  This does not include those who are on pensions, Social spending, non-wage related expenses such as per diems and travel expenses, and spending on goods and services the Federal Government uses.  That is nearly 30 million people who have to make $50,000 without any deduction and without any credits to simply supply the Federal Government’s Payroll.

So… what is the answer?  Apart from the obvious of shrink Government, it would be to promote the increase in the Average Median Income.   This cannot be done by wealth re-distribution as it encourages mediocrity.  This cannot be done by increasing the minimum wage (a popular solution among those who don’t know or don’t care about the consequences) as it increases the costs of goods and services.   This cannot be done by increasing the tax rate as it stagnates income generation when it goes over 23%.   Lowering the minimum wage, lowering the tax rate, and cutting redundant programs would be a start.   Add to that cutting the Federal Payroll for bureaucratic positions and dramatically slashing Social programs would be an added boon as it would mean lower tax rates necessary to maintain the Federal Government while it pays down it’s own debt.

The next step would be to end Social Security and Medicare entitlements for those under 50.   That is, if you were born after 1960, you cannot count on Social Security or Medicare to exist.   Those older than 50 would still be eligible to receive it and the current working population would continue to contribute but the employer portion of the contribution would be cut completely (something employees forget about when they gripe about their paychecks).  Health Care reform would first limit the rewards for Trial lawyers and require more tangible proofs of negligence.   It would also encourage States streamline their own regulations with regards to Health Insurance and acceptance of out of state insurers.   Additionally, it would move any credit given for holding health insurance from the employer to the employee.  This would encourage the individual to purchase health care and avoid the temptation of Government to tax employer offered health care as a benefit while freeing the employee from tying them self to a company solely because of Health Benefits.

Government does not need to supply health coverage.   Doctors already abide by the Hippocratic Oath, State and Federal regulations require emergency care to be given without proof of insurance, and the market will adjust and perform better the less government tampers and bullies.

Most everyone will be aware that this week, the Supreme Court recognized that Corporations are covered by the 1st Amendment.   There are some very good discussions here and here.   But I will add this: “As long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you,” President Obama.  Somehow, this statement ranks up there with: “Hope and Change”, “Back to our Founding Documents”, “Bi-partisanship”, “Open Process”, and others.    The man is already proved to be disingenuous and speaking from both sides of his mouth as seems fitting.

This is important.  McCain-Feingold censored corporations – with the exception of Media Corporations.  I cannot help but think of “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal” quote from Animal Farm.   I am also reminded of Proverbs 20:10 “Diverse weights and diverse measures, They are both alike, an abomination to the LORD.”  And what DOES the First Amendment say: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”   There was a lot of talk about Precedent being overturned with this decision.  So what?  Precedent is, at best, an informal guide as to what others think about a particular law.    Precedent is not the law itself and cannot be treated as such.   Otherwise, as others have noted, Segregation would still be legal or judgments such as Dred Scott.

Can Corporations have excessive influence?   Certainly, but then so can individuals as well.    To argue that a corporation has undue influence on the political process is to also argue that individuals have undue influence on the political process.  And what is a corporation except an organization run by people?   What is the real corrupting factor?   People?  Corporations?  No, it is Money and Power.    If one is to censor, it should not be based on whether one filed as an C-Corp. or formed a PAC, but on whether or not there is money and power?   Who decides how to quantify that?

The problem with government limiting anything is that it creates political power.    The problem with limiting corporations is that, if you are anti-corporation, you now have undue influence over them.   How is the censored supposed to protect itself from those who would ruin it?   Large corporations, wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals can have excessive influence over government and, via legislation crafted by those they sponsor, create artificial obstacles to prevent competition and protect their own gains.   But how to combat this influence?

Free markets and, more critically: the free flow of information.    If all political campaigns are required to disclose their funding sources and all advertisements required to disclose their creators and funders, the voters can see for themselves who is influencing what and make decisions from there.    The Internet is an amazing mixed bag of information.   But, and this is what is great about the Internet: you can cheaply have your voice heard.    It is one very good reason why government should be kept out and away from regulating Internet content.    It is a good reason to oppose the Legislation which allows the President to “turn off” the Internet in the event of a “National Emergency”.

Quite frankly, what should be turned off is the assumption that anything digital can be made hacker proof.   Nuclear power plants should not be remotely accessible via the Internet (whoever thought they should be and made them so should have been fired).   Then there are some freakish elected officials in Washington who think that Blogs and the Internet should be regulated for speech.  Worse, however, is the amorphous Hate Speech laws.   Certainly Hate Speech should be shunned, but it is protected by the First Amendment none-the-less.   Additionally, it is always good to know who the quality of a person you are dealing with and that is more difficult to know when Freedom of Speech is impaired.

Censoring Corporations, or large donors, or the Internet does nothing to purify the political process.   If anything, it makes the water murkier.

If there is one thing the Republican Party needs, must, has to learn from Massachusetts is that Conservatism is a winner.  If Scott Brown ran as a Moderate, ran as McCain ran, he would have lost.   Why?  Because people know that a man of conviction would not run as middle of the road; would not run as a Moderate.   Moderates may be flexible, but they are flexible because they bend in the wind are not reliable to stick to their convictions.   That is perhaps why Liberals love moderates and love telling the Republican party that they can’t win without them.

McCain is a moderate.
Bush 1 was a moderate.
Bush 2 proved a Moderate in his Second term.

What were the results?  McCain lost to Obama because Obama made more of an effort to appear less Liberal than McCain.   McCain did little to demonstrate why he was different from Obama and could not convince voters that he was a “Maverick” because, in truth, he was far from being one.   Voters recalled McCain-Feingold, that lovely legislation limiting freedom of speech.   Voters recalled the 2004-2008 period where Republicans… supposedly the conservative party, spent like Liberals, expanded the government like Liberals, and proposed legislation like Amnesty for illegal immigrants – like Liberals.

People wanted change from all that.  People were hopeful that Obama would give it to them.   And they were sorely disappointed.

Sure, there will always be moderates, but it is the responsibility of the voters to recognize who they are and not repeatedly vote them in.   The Republican leadership needs to be heavily filtered to expunge moderates from it’s ranks and in turn promote strong Conservatives who will stand on their principles.  Otherwise, 2012, 2014, and 2016 will see the complete demise of the Republican party as a party of Conservative principle.

The good news, for the majority of the Nation, is that Scott Brown appears to have won the Senate race in Massachusetts.    This is good news as it means the Health Care “Reform” bill is defeat-able.    The down side is that we will see just how determined those who want to see it’s passage become.   Unless they sit back and play it cool, “The people have spoken” attitude, they will knee-jerk and attempt to pass the bill via some chicanery.   In that latter event, they will certainly lose their majority come November.

Either way, baring a miracle, Obama is not going to see a second term.   After this past year – the blatantly broken promises derived from a deceitful campaign which led Obama to victory by causing voters to not think of him as the Radical he is, people know who Obama is and what he is about.  Freedom and Liberty are not on the topmost offering he has to give.