Pasadena Politics

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.

“We have a separation of Church and State”

What, exactly, is the separation of Church and State about?  Does it mean that Law and where Government are superior to ones individual beliefs or that ones individual beliefs are superior to the Law and Government?  Does it mean that Government and the law are defer to religious beliefs or that religion is deferred to?  When one reads the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” in the First Amendment, one cannot reasonably deduct that religion takes a back seat to Laws passed by Congress.

Yet Coakley, someone who took the oath of office which includes no small promise to defend the Constitution, seems to have no clue what the Constitution talks about.   Such ignorance of the document upon which the USA was founded is inexcusable for someone attempting to represent their State.    But this is perhaps a sign of how entrenched the idea that the “Separation of Church and State” (which is an idea outside the Constitution not even found in the Federalist Papers but in a letter) means that Religion is shut out and disenfranchised rather than the State being shut out of influencing or managing Religion.   The gross perverting of the Constitution to mean something contrary to what the Founders intended had not been a slow process or even a new process.

It is a process that does not hold our Freedoms or our Liberties in high esteem yet it will unflinchingly hide behind those same freedoms and liberties in order to tear them down for everyone else.   It is as dishonest as it is hypocritical.

Here we have Coakley stating that because of the separation of Church and State, Catholic Doctors cannot decline to offer contraception and they should find other employment.  Our Nation happened to have been founded by people who fled from statists like Coakley.    The Constitution and Bill of Rights were formulated to combat them as well.     May Steve Brown beat Coakley hands down.