Mr. President:
We the people are not angry because of some issue called "jobs". We are angry because we voted for you based on your promises not about the specifics of what you would do but rather HOW you would do them.
You said:
1) there would be no place for lobbyists in your administration. That promise lasted a day or two before you started making exceptions for it, which then numbered in the dozens and dozens.
2) healthcare was too important to pass on a 50+1 basis. It was too important to pass on a straight party-line vote. Yet you then proceeded to do exactly that.
3) healthcare would be: on CPSAN for all to see; not behind closed doors; the special interests would be in the open for all to see, hence the no-closed-door part; written in a bipartisan fashion. You proceeded to do exactly the OPPOSITE of literally of those things. It was not written in public, it was written behind closed doors. It was written exclusively by Nancy Pelosi and her minions in the House, behind closed doors, to the exclusion of anyone other than a select few Democrats.
4) you would govern in a bipartisan fashion. That died stillborn. You made no effort to do so. You immediately, BEFORE ever meeting with Republicans, started calling them names and talking down to them -- all things someone sincerely wanting to achieve bipartisanship would NOT do. You refused to push your own party to include anyone other than Ms. Pelosi and her ilk (of your own party) in the process, as she was shutting out any attempt made by Republicans to submit ideas (over and over and over again).
5) you would rise above the name-calling and not demonize your opponents. That one didn't make it past the moment you said it. Your party has done nothing but demonize its opponents, and you have waded deeply into that disgusting pool yourself even recently (with the "poor me, they treat me like a dog" speech).
Your promises as to HOW you would govern is why you were elected, sir, in an effort to bring the country past the partisan governance of the past. Yet you proceeded (admittedly, to no surprise to those of us who bothered to read about your background before voting) to govern in ways that would only exacerbate and extend that very partisanship. You did nothing whatsoever to bridge divides, other than state "agree with me, or else".
Ultimately, Mr. President, you are being held accountable for how you promised to govern. And in that regard, sir, you have proven that you meant nothing of those promises, since you have broken literally all of them. THAT is why the Tea Parties exist, Mr. President; that is why the Republicans are about to retake the House and probably the Senate, as well as a large majority of the governorships, not to mention statehouses.
Your predecessor actually knew how to try to be bipartisan. He brought Ted Kennedy INTO the process and had him co-write the Education reform efforts in the early Bush years. Co-write -- not "agree with what I want, or else". Your behavior in office, and that of Ms. Pelosi, has only reminded people that George Bush actually tried to be partisan GENIUNELY... and that you, flatly, never bothered, despite promising to do so.
You and your party, Mr. President, are being judged by the American people based on how you promised to govern -- and the fact that you did not govern even remotely according to what you said you would do.
It really is that simple.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Friday, April 09, 2010
tax reform
We should consider the following:
1) abolish the federal income tax
Okay. Take a deep breath and keep reading:
1) Federal Sales Tax. We should never consider doing this unless we abolish federal income taxes completely. I suggest we do so. Set this at 20% and exempt basic (non-luxury) food items. The studies I can find indicate that it would take around 14% to replace, dollar-for-dollar, the money brought in by the income tax. This would have the benefit of setting the federal government's "income" to the economic activity of the people. This would eliminate the IRS as we know it, eliminate all the clauses whereby the government can jail a citizen for not obeying tax laws perfectly, and cause a giant upheaval in the tax-preparation industry. Nonetheless, regardless of the pain, this would be a giant plus for the country as a whole. Plus, it would eliminate the entire federal income-tax code and replace it with a tax that would be paid whenever we bought things. Goodbye, IRS; goodbye, overcomplicated tax code; goodbye, government jailing people for not being able to accurately follow the 1000s of pages of code (or even figure out the index to it, assuming an index exists somewhere).
This would also share the reality of supporting the government across all income levels. It would also hit the rich squarely, as the more items you buy, the more pricey the items, the more you'd pay in federal sales tax. It would put a premium on making people THINK about their expenditures more than the current system does.
Want a progressive tax code? Whoever buys the most, pays the most. How is that not the fairest of all systems?
It could be argued to retain a smidgen of the IRS and a corporate tax code. For now, let's say that, if we did that, we could exempt businesses with under, say, 25 employees; and set a flat rate with no exemptions of 10% for all companies above that limit.
Ultimately, our goal with the tax code (whatever its form) should be:
1) minimize the situations that the code creates whereby the government jails its citizens for not obeying it's edicts (or being able to follow the labrynthian nature of the laws).
2) minimize the bloat. KISS -- keep it simple, stupid. That means simple in terms of its math, but also in terms of its organization and regulatory complexity.
3) ideally, a system as above would be fairer, in that the poor spend less (and therefore spend less on a federal sales tax) and the rich spend more (and therefore pay more in that tax system). When the economy does well, the government's coffers do well -- when the people are hurting, so is the government. That relationship should exist, and under the current system when the people are hurting... it's often the government's fault, or the government's obscenely-complicated systems only make things worse, and usually in an inefficient and unnecessarily costly way. The current relationship is antagonistic; the no-federal-income-tax, federal-sales-tax-instead system would be more friendly and therefore more healthy in a civic sense.
1) abolish the federal income tax
Okay. Take a deep breath and keep reading:
1) Federal Sales Tax. We should never consider doing this unless we abolish federal income taxes completely. I suggest we do so. Set this at 20% and exempt basic (non-luxury) food items. The studies I can find indicate that it would take around 14% to replace, dollar-for-dollar, the money brought in by the income tax. This would have the benefit of setting the federal government's "income" to the economic activity of the people. This would eliminate the IRS as we know it, eliminate all the clauses whereby the government can jail a citizen for not obeying tax laws perfectly, and cause a giant upheaval in the tax-preparation industry. Nonetheless, regardless of the pain, this would be a giant plus for the country as a whole. Plus, it would eliminate the entire federal income-tax code and replace it with a tax that would be paid whenever we bought things. Goodbye, IRS; goodbye, overcomplicated tax code; goodbye, government jailing people for not being able to accurately follow the 1000s of pages of code (or even figure out the index to it, assuming an index exists somewhere).
This would also share the reality of supporting the government across all income levels. It would also hit the rich squarely, as the more items you buy, the more pricey the items, the more you'd pay in federal sales tax. It would put a premium on making people THINK about their expenditures more than the current system does.
Want a progressive tax code? Whoever buys the most, pays the most. How is that not the fairest of all systems?
It could be argued to retain a smidgen of the IRS and a corporate tax code. For now, let's say that, if we did that, we could exempt businesses with under, say, 25 employees; and set a flat rate with no exemptions of 10% for all companies above that limit.
Ultimately, our goal with the tax code (whatever its form) should be:
1) minimize the situations that the code creates whereby the government jails its citizens for not obeying it's edicts (or being able to follow the labrynthian nature of the laws).
2) minimize the bloat. KISS -- keep it simple, stupid. That means simple in terms of its math, but also in terms of its organization and regulatory complexity.
3) ideally, a system as above would be fairer, in that the poor spend less (and therefore spend less on a federal sales tax) and the rich spend more (and therefore pay more in that tax system). When the economy does well, the government's coffers do well -- when the people are hurting, so is the government. That relationship should exist, and under the current system when the people are hurting... it's often the government's fault, or the government's obscenely-complicated systems only make things worse, and usually in an inefficient and unnecessarily costly way. The current relationship is antagonistic; the no-federal-income-tax, federal-sales-tax-instead system would be more friendly and therefore more healthy in a civic sense.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
predictions for november 2010
Well, folks, it's 6 months early, but I'm going to go ahead and forecast my predictions for the election results of November 2010.
Senate: +10 Republican (I thought this wouldn't happen, but if even Barbara Boxer is slipping, then anything is possible). Senate control flips by 1 vote to Republicans.
House of Representatives: +60. I was saying +40, but as I look at what few votes we have, and the votes that have been taken in the past six months for little things like judiciaries and such, it looks more and more like a freakin' tidal wave. Given that the target to flip control is 217, and they 178, that's 39 needed -- and well exceeded. Control flips to Republicans with room to spare.
Governors: +14 Republicans.
I'd say at a minimum, assuming everything broke the Democrats way, the worst the Republicans are going to do is:
Senate: +6 Republicans. Dems 53, Reps 47. Dems retain Control
House: +40 Republicans. Reps 218. Reps take Control, with no room to spare.
Governor: +10 Republicans. Even here, the majority of governorships will be Republicans.
So, my forecast is an overwhelming Republican vote (though it will mostly be a gigantic protest against the backroom-dealing, special-interest-begging, closed-door b.s. the Dems promised NOT to do). Even in the worst of worlds for Republicans, they'll still take the majority of governorships and they'll take control of the House. They'll also have a close enough vote in the Senate that how that body acts will change.
Special Forecast:
Harry Reid loses his seat either way.
Barbara Boxer loses her Senate seat by 2 points.
Illinois votes for a Republican governor and fills the once-Obama Senate seat with a Republican.
Arlen "I won't change parties, I swear; now, let me change parties, so they can count on my loyalty!" Specter loses his Senate seat in Pennsylvania to Pat Toomey. Republicans everywhere laugh. Long and hard.
No matter what she does, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas is toast, plain and simple. She won't be able to escape her vote on health-care... and she'll have a LOT of company in that respect.
See ya'll in November.
(And I'm in Illinois, which means I can cast my own vote toward my special forecasts! Yeah!)
Senate: +10 Republican (I thought this wouldn't happen, but if even Barbara Boxer is slipping, then anything is possible). Senate control flips by 1 vote to Republicans.
House of Representatives: +60. I was saying +40, but as I look at what few votes we have, and the votes that have been taken in the past six months for little things like judiciaries and such, it looks more and more like a freakin' tidal wave. Given that the target to flip control is 217, and they 178, that's 39 needed -- and well exceeded. Control flips to Republicans with room to spare.
Governors: +14 Republicans.
I'd say at a minimum, assuming everything broke the Democrats way, the worst the Republicans are going to do is:
Senate: +6 Republicans. Dems 53, Reps 47. Dems retain Control
House: +40 Republicans. Reps 218. Reps take Control, with no room to spare.
Governor: +10 Republicans. Even here, the majority of governorships will be Republicans.
So, my forecast is an overwhelming Republican vote (though it will mostly be a gigantic protest against the backroom-dealing, special-interest-begging, closed-door b.s. the Dems promised NOT to do). Even in the worst of worlds for Republicans, they'll still take the majority of governorships and they'll take control of the House. They'll also have a close enough vote in the Senate that how that body acts will change.
Special Forecast:
Harry Reid loses his seat either way.
Barbara Boxer loses her Senate seat by 2 points.
Illinois votes for a Republican governor and fills the once-Obama Senate seat with a Republican.
Arlen "I won't change parties, I swear; now, let me change parties, so they can count on my loyalty!" Specter loses his Senate seat in Pennsylvania to Pat Toomey. Republicans everywhere laugh. Long and hard.
No matter what she does, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas is toast, plain and simple. She won't be able to escape her vote on health-care... and she'll have a LOT of company in that respect.
See ya'll in November.
(And I'm in Illinois, which means I can cast my own vote toward my special forecasts! Yeah!)
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Obama and the policy of betrayal
So, let's consider the Obama foreign policy promises: hire him, and other countries would start working with us because they like him better; hire him, and China and Russia would work with him rather than dumb-down everything being tried; hire him, and he'd talk to dictators as in Iran, and they'd all back down and stop doing the bad things. Hire him, and our alliances would be stronger and more robust...
Now, one year later, we have a clear vision of the reality of Barack Obama:
-- we reneged on the promise to deploy antimissile defenses in Poland and Czech, telling the press BEFORE telling our allies in those two countries and without any advance notice to them;
-- we have systematically destroyed the relationships with our traditional allies, starting with the insults to the British (now too many to count, DVDs and returned gifts and disrespecting their traditions and on and on), insults FROM the French about how "naive" and "stupid" Obama is, with the same from Germany. We've labelled Israel the chief enemy to peace in the Middle East, despite their having literally given everything they'd been asked to give twice in the past, only to have the Palestinians then up the ante once again -- despite being on the receiving end of actual violence; despite being surrounded by countries and the Palestinians who have said flatly that Israel didn't have the right to exist. We've exchanged gifts with Chavez and kow-towed to the Russians and Chinese ... and Chavez continues his crackdown on anyone who disagrees with him and on centralizing his dictatorship; and Russia continues to work with Iran, as does China, while both force us from the promise of "forceful sanctions" against Iran to the pathetic "we'll settle for what the Russians are offering" (aka more of the same weak, incomplete, and utterly useless sanctions, on par with past sanctions and "condemnations" from the UN).
Hm... let's see. Our traditional allies -- England, France, Israel, and (in the past 50 years) Germany, Czech, Poland, we've actively insulted them, ignored them while betraying them and reneging on our commitments to them. Our enemies -- the President bows to them, exchanges gifts with them, and has budged NOT ONE of them to change their course. He has, however, managed to remain silent for weeks while the people in Iran rose up and tried to overthrow the dictators who rule them.
Anyone who thought Obama would be anything BUT an appeaser has more than enough evidence now that Appeasement is now the rule of the land, as far as foreign policy is concerned. Literally, appeasement, even to the point of betraying, ignoring, and insulting our allies, if that's what the bad guys insist on.
God help this country make it to 2012, when it can hire someone else who isn't an appeasement-type, who cares more about having the respect of foreign leaders instead of their "liking" him/her. Someone who will stand up for the values and ideals that made this country what it is and has been -- rather than someone who goes abroad and gives speeches insulting this country, demeaning its contributions, and literally lying to inflate the contributions of our enemies (specifically, Islam had nothing to do with the creation of mathematics, Mister Obama, who made the claim while in Egypt -- the ancient Babylonians might have something to say, like, um, try looking up the history you're citing, Mr. Obama, so you can do it accurately?).
Now, one year later, we have a clear vision of the reality of Barack Obama:
-- we reneged on the promise to deploy antimissile defenses in Poland and Czech, telling the press BEFORE telling our allies in those two countries and without any advance notice to them;
-- we have systematically destroyed the relationships with our traditional allies, starting with the insults to the British (now too many to count, DVDs and returned gifts and disrespecting their traditions and on and on), insults FROM the French about how "naive" and "stupid" Obama is, with the same from Germany. We've labelled Israel the chief enemy to peace in the Middle East, despite their having literally given everything they'd been asked to give twice in the past, only to have the Palestinians then up the ante once again -- despite being on the receiving end of actual violence; despite being surrounded by countries and the Palestinians who have said flatly that Israel didn't have the right to exist. We've exchanged gifts with Chavez and kow-towed to the Russians and Chinese ... and Chavez continues his crackdown on anyone who disagrees with him and on centralizing his dictatorship; and Russia continues to work with Iran, as does China, while both force us from the promise of "forceful sanctions" against Iran to the pathetic "we'll settle for what the Russians are offering" (aka more of the same weak, incomplete, and utterly useless sanctions, on par with past sanctions and "condemnations" from the UN).
Hm... let's see. Our traditional allies -- England, France, Israel, and (in the past 50 years) Germany, Czech, Poland, we've actively insulted them, ignored them while betraying them and reneging on our commitments to them. Our enemies -- the President bows to them, exchanges gifts with them, and has budged NOT ONE of them to change their course. He has, however, managed to remain silent for weeks while the people in Iran rose up and tried to overthrow the dictators who rule them.
Anyone who thought Obama would be anything BUT an appeaser has more than enough evidence now that Appeasement is now the rule of the land, as far as foreign policy is concerned. Literally, appeasement, even to the point of betraying, ignoring, and insulting our allies, if that's what the bad guys insist on.
God help this country make it to 2012, when it can hire someone else who isn't an appeasement-type, who cares more about having the respect of foreign leaders instead of their "liking" him/her. Someone who will stand up for the values and ideals that made this country what it is and has been -- rather than someone who goes abroad and gives speeches insulting this country, demeaning its contributions, and literally lying to inflate the contributions of our enemies (specifically, Islam had nothing to do with the creation of mathematics, Mister Obama, who made the claim while in Egypt -- the ancient Babylonians might have something to say, like, um, try looking up the history you're citing, Mr. Obama, so you can do it accurately?).
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Candidate Obama versus President Obama
So, we have a simple comparison to make. If the question is, has Barack Obama delivered what he promised as a candidate, it is a simple matter to look back at the campaign and see what it was he promised... and then look at how he has governed.
Candidate Obama made an oft-repeated mantra of changing the "politics as usual", of getting away from backroom deals, of announcing how evil "special interest hand-outs" were. We were treated to the famous line "There will be no place, let me repeat that, no place in my administration for lobbyists", as well as the equally-famous "the process will be in the open, so everyone can... we'll put in on C-SPAN, so everyone can see who's making the backroom deals and cutting deals with the special interests..."
Reality: President Obama wrote a rule that said no lobbyists... and took less than 24 hours to start writing one after another exemption to the rule. Big surprise: the rule becomes no rule, when you make mass exceptions to it.
Reality: the entire health-care process has been written by the special few in the Democrat leadership, behind closed doors, with no camera access. We know now that the bill is rife with deals to special interest groups and rife with backroom deals among the politicians. We know that the process has been the opposite of "open and transparent."
On the issue of governance, of how to govern, on how to get rid of corruption and "change the politics as usual", the Candidate had good ideas. The President Obama, however, has literally gone back on ALL of those ideas, governing in the exact manner he had criticized.
And he wonders why people can't seem to "get the message". Mr. President, they got the message very clearly. And therein lay your problem, sir. They got the message that they had bought Candidate Obama's promises of governance... and were given the exact opposite.
Candidate Obama made an oft-repeated mantra of changing the "politics as usual", of getting away from backroom deals, of announcing how evil "special interest hand-outs" were. We were treated to the famous line "There will be no place, let me repeat that, no place in my administration for lobbyists", as well as the equally-famous "the process will be in the open, so everyone can... we'll put in on C-SPAN, so everyone can see who's making the backroom deals and cutting deals with the special interests..."
Reality: President Obama wrote a rule that said no lobbyists... and took less than 24 hours to start writing one after another exemption to the rule. Big surprise: the rule becomes no rule, when you make mass exceptions to it.
Reality: the entire health-care process has been written by the special few in the Democrat leadership, behind closed doors, with no camera access. We know now that the bill is rife with deals to special interest groups and rife with backroom deals among the politicians. We know that the process has been the opposite of "open and transparent."
On the issue of governance, of how to govern, on how to get rid of corruption and "change the politics as usual", the Candidate had good ideas. The President Obama, however, has literally gone back on ALL of those ideas, governing in the exact manner he had criticized.
And he wonders why people can't seem to "get the message". Mr. President, they got the message very clearly. And therein lay your problem, sir. They got the message that they had bought Candidate Obama's promises of governance... and were given the exact opposite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)