Any presidential candidate who wears his religion on his sleeve for all of us to see vies for pastor in chief, not commander in chief. Me? I'm voting for someone who can lead our nation to a strong military, smaller government, fewer taxes, individual freedom with no nannyish tendencies, and an America-first foreign policy.
"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."
So he got into politics because the answer lies in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. Is there a dot I missed? Where's the natural segue?
I never thought I would say this, but I'm vehemently opposed to Mike Huckabee. I'll vote for Jacques Chirac before I'll vote for Mike Huckabee.
Chad R. urged me in the comments last night to check my facts before I make my decision. Chad, buddy, the words from your guy's mouth tell me clearly that he can't make sensible decisions without running it through his bible filter.
I have no problem with religion and a person's private practice thereof. But if Mike's hoping to take the Republican nomination by invoking the numbers of the Passion of the Christ crowd, then I'm squarely against Mike. Ours is not a Christian nation; it's a multi-religion nation. Jesus Christ is not our national answer.
Mitt Romney gave a really impressive speech last week on faith as applied in politics. He said this:
"I do not define my candidacy by my religion. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law. We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state, nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion."
That's spot-on.
If Republicans nominate Mike Huckabee, then I'm a man without a party. Go Jacques!
After I finished writing about the peril in wealth redistribution, I slept on it and woke up this morning having more thoughts about it.
The way it's packaged by politicians, you would think that a corporate tax break was some sort of government giveaway - a giant subsidy. But it's not... a corporate tax break is simply a reduction in taxes paid to the government. The government is not handing over money to the company - it's taking less. Big difference.
And while we're on the subject, why does a corporation have to pay taxes in the first place? Does it drive on the roads? Use the bathroom? Because in theory, taxes are collected to pay for the common utilities of humans. A company is a non-human organization for people who have found a way to work together to deliver a good or service to other humans. That's it. It's a facade for the purpose of business.
Furthermore, the government collects taxes on revenue. Revenue happens when people pay a company for the good or service delivered. That profit earned by the company is then dispersed among those who worked to deliver the good or service in the form of a paycheck. But it stands to reason that if the government steps in and collects money from the company's revenue not once but twice - first from the company's income and then second from the income earned by workers - then the workers get less money because the government is now an added expense for the business.
So, a corporate tax break is no evil, as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama paint it, but a means by which to better pay the workers who earned the company's revenue in the first place. Hillary's plan to take away corporate tax breaks would rob the company's workers of the money they earned at work and seek to give it to others who had nothing at all to do with the money earned.
And that plan will create jobs??? Of course not.
Exactly the opposite would create jobs. Politicians should abolish the notion of non-human corporations paying taxes at all. Let the company disperse more of the profits to its workers in the form of either higher paychecks or creating more jobs at the company. Either way, it's better for people.
Hillary? Barack? Other "populist" politicians? They're all about robbing you, the employee, of what you help the company earn. That is the evil.
The headline reads, "High Income Taxes in Denmark Worsen a Labor Shortage." The tax rate for people who earn more than $70,000 is 63%, all in the name of shortening the gap between the rich and the poor.
Politicians love wealth redistribution policy because it allows them to become popular by giving away tax revenue to voters. Never mind that such policy never stimulates economic growth. Why would it?
Those who know how to make money are discourged to keep making it.
Those who don't know how to make money have no incentive to learn how. They learn instead to stand there with their hand out.
Voters who favor candidates who promote wealth redistribution policies are ignorant to their own harm. Wealth redistribution is a diet of junk food: tastes great in the short-run, but it makes you fat and lazy in the long-term. Denmark shows us that with its labor problems due its high tax rates due to "such effective income redistribution that Denmark is the most nearly equal society in the world, in that wealth is more evenly spread than anywhere else." Ah, the joys of wealth equality.
In response to this crisis, Denmark just re-elected right-leaning Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. From Wikipedia:
His government has made a major reform of the structure of government in Denmark, including tough measures designed to limit the number of immigrants coming to Denmark, and freezing the rates of existing taxes, which is 68% at maximum. Taxes have been lowered but the Conservatives repeatedly argue for more tax cuts and a flat tax rate at no higher than 50%. In general, Rasmussen is in favour of deregulation, privatization, and limiting the size of government. His government has also enacted tough measures designed to limit the number of immigrants coming to Denmark, specifically as asylum-seekers or through arranged marriages.
When I watch Hillary's "I'll take away corporate tax breaks and give them to you" commercials airing here in Iowa, it strikes me how harmful she would be as president if she succeeds in her pledge. She says that this policy will create new jobs.
Really? Follow that through...
If a company enjoys lower taxes, it has more money to hire more workers. A job is how a worker gets money. In fact, a job is an ongoing means of revenue. Every two weeks, you have more money. It's a gift that keeps on giving.
If Hillary takes away that money from the company and dillutes it in distribution to everyone, it's a small and infrequent occurrence. Are you going to take that little bit of money and create a job with it? No. (Few people today know how to create jobs and Hillary's not among that group. She's never started a business that, you know, creates jobs.)
Will that pittance of redistribution from the company tax breaks to you cause money to continue to spring forth ongoing dollars like a job would? No. You'll buy a few things with and then it's gone - at the expense of the jobs lost for her desire to take money from a job-producing enterprise. No jobs were created in this farcical exercise. In fact, jobs were lost.
Unfortunately, there are too many people in Iowa who watch these ads, ridiculous on their face, and come away thinking that Hillary is a great problem-solver.
Obama, by the way, has a similar commercial, where some older fella smiles at the end of the commercial that Obama is gonna take care of him. Hoo boy, what a hoot.
Creepy and short-sighted is what it is. It's like aspiring to build a football team that is equal in talents not by making them work to achieve it but by tying all of their shoestrings together so that they can all run at the same speed.
Argue with me if you like. I hold up the example of country after country in Europe that has tried wealth redistribution and socialist policy only to the faltering of their economies and weakened standard of living and high unemployment rates. Today's example is Denmark.
I write with passion about politics here on beatcanvas to do my little part to ensure that America is not soon an example from this hemisphere. Unfortunately, we have too many politicians who think they're smarter than the capitalist system. And too many voters who believe those politicians.
I read that Mike Huckabee is gaining ground in the polls. Tamara met the governor and his wife at the Iowa Straw Poll that we attended. Mike Huckabee's wife said that she loved Tamara's skirt... (of course she did - my wife has excellent style)
But I can't vote for Mike Huckabee. For a few reasons...
Reason Number 1: The boy loves him his tax increases.
Reason Number 2: The boy is soft on criminals.
He urged the parole of a convicted rapist, who then left prison and raped and killed a woman. He regrets the decision now, and maybe it would influence him to not be soft, but c'mon...
Reason Number 3: The boy loves him illegal immigration.
When he was governor, Huckabee held the following positions on illegal immigration: He supported higher education benefits for children of illegal immigrants, opposed a federal roundup of illegals from his state in 2005, opposed a 2001 bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote in the state, and in 2001, a member of his administration pushed for legislation to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Under Governor Huckabee's watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07). The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06), and the state's general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion...
And for all those very sound reasons, I can't get behind the guy. He's Jimmy Carter in Republican clothing. I don't think so.
Back in August, I said that "Clinton is too smart to blow a [double-digit] lead that big with her own gaffe."
I gave her too much credit, as she has emerged as a sock puppeteer. Here's the Wikipedia definition, with minor editing:
A sockpuppet is an identity used for purposes of deception within a community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of a community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.
The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym is the pretence that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.
In this case, a young woman's sincere question was not adequate. Instead, Hillary stuck her hand up the woman's body and uttered the question for which Hillary was prepared.
A senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.
"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said.
"'I don't think that's a good idea," the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, "because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans."
He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.
"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. " It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."
Topping that sheet of paper was the following: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"
And while she said she would have rather used her own question, Gallo-Chasanoff said she generally didn't have a problem asking the campaign's because she "likes to be agreeable," adding that since she told the staffer she'd ask their pre-typed question she "didn't want to go back on [her] word."
So much for supporting a woman's right to free speech.
Hillary is weak. She can't handle anything but easy, pre-selected questions from anyone. Any variation from the script is not a "good idea," whether it's Tim Russert or 19-year-old Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff.
We like need our presidents to be strong. "Don't hit me, I'm a girl" is not a winning campaign strategy, and she's an idiot to try this stuff.
The Democratic nomination is again up for grabs.
ETC: Yep - she's toast. This is gaining momentum.
This would never be said about a man. There is no way feminists will support her now, unless she puts this firmly and finally to bed, and quickly. And frankly, I don't think she's up to it. Which is a shame. Women deserve a better representative than Hillary.
MORE ETC: And noted feminist Camille Paglia weighs in...
Hillary's stonewalling evasions and mercurial, soulless self-positionings have been going on since her first run for the U.S. Senate from New York, a state she had never lived in and knew virtually nothing about. The liberal Northeastern media were criminally complicit in enabling her queenlike, content-free "listening tour," where she took no hard questions and where her staff and security people (including her government-supplied Secret Service detail) staged events stocked with vetted sympathizers, and where they ensured that no protesters would ever come within camera range.
That compulsive micromanagement, ultimately emanating from Hillary herself, has come back to haunt her in her dismaying inability to field complex unscripted questions in a public forum. The presidential sweepstakes are too harsh an arena for tenderfoot novices. Hillary's much-vaunted "experience" has evidently not extended to the dynamic give-and-take of authentic debate. The mild challenges she has faced would be pitiful indeed by British standards, which favor a caustic style of witty put-downs that draw applause and gales of laughter in the House of Commons. Women had better toughen up if they aspire to be commander in chief.
She titles the piece "Queen Hillary's disruptive court" and then subtitles it: "The press corps finally wakes up to her waffling and evasions."
This is where my call for greater self-sufficiency is important. You see, poor Warren and Barak are under the impression that they need to wait for the government to legislate their ability to pay more taxes. But you see, government is not the answer, although it's not atypical of leftists to believe that it would be.
Instead, they only need to send the money they feel they're shorting the government to the IRS as an anonymous donation, which can't be returned and will go to the general fund. Of course, in making such a donation anonymously, they'll abandon any need for adulation for their selfless act. After all, such charity is best had simply through the act, and warms the heart of the giver without the need for recognition. Why, it's almost patriotism.
For the rest of us who feel our tax rate is adequate or burdensome, we'll send positive vibes in their anonymous direction knowing that they have helped to stave off the need for any of us less inclined to pay more. And we appreciate that.
So I encourage Warren and Barry to be self-sufficient and creative about giving, and do what they in their hearts feel is best... without mandating their inner turmoil on the rest of us. This country was founded on the notion of rugged individualism, and they have my full support to individually give more, since they feel so strongly about this.
Why is it that the obscure and hyperventilated Ron Paul can raise $4 million in a day, but the most likely guys to win the nomination - Mitt and Rudy - can't? Plus, Mitt's spending a beejesus to get funds raised; Ron Paul spends nothing. I'm sure that the businessman in Mitt has respect for the efficiency of Ron's money machine.
I looked over Ron's ideas and plans, believing that therein lie the core of his attraction to folks.
That's part of it.
How did Ron outraise Mitt and Rudy in a day and spend nothing to do it? Why did it work?
In other words, what are they doing wrong?
Mitt's web site is easy to find; it's his name - mittromney.com. That shows some vision.
Rudy's? Not so much. It's the unintuitive joinrudy2008.com. The simpler rudy08.com is taken by someone hoping to make a buck off it, and Rudy's too cheap to buy it.
Once you get to either site, you can browse their issues and plans like I did .
At a glance, what do you learn about the governor? Not much. Now, you can click into each issue and learn more, but holy smokes is it hard to find the bullet points version.
I really don't like videos that automatically start playing when I visit a site. Rudy's issues page does that. It's annoying.
And while he has more text on his issues and plans than Mitt, it's all basically a recap of his time as mayor of New York City. He's gotten criticism for doing that in debates, and he's backed off that tactic. His web site, unfortunately, carries it on. But maybe that doesn't matter because maybe nobody's visiting his web site...
And if I click on the link to learn more, I get a concise explanation of his position and his plan. In a brief 30 minutes, I know the guy.
With Mitt, I need a few hours or days, and frankly, nothing is really clear. His links to learn more about each issue are nothing more than a coupe of blurbs and a video per issue. Looks pretty, but it's hollow and flat. There are links that provide more substance, but they're not intuitive and they're a thick read when you do get to them.
With Rudy, his links to learn more are mostly videos... and it's just him talking. Big deal.
As a blogger, I devoted a lot of space to Ron Paul because I could - he made it easy for me to do that. The post I did on Ron's positions - I can't do that for Rudy or Mitt. They don't make it easy for me at all.
Which makes them personality candidates, and that's a problem.
The second thing is that Ron Paul has outsourced the marketing for his campaign to a very passionate group: his supporters.
"The organization of the campaign popped up spontaneously on the Internet with these meet-up groups," Paul said in a recent interview with ABC News. "It's natural that they would donate the money. So in many ways the campaign has found me as much as I have found them. It's not a top-down organization. Its sort of bottom up. All we have done at the campaign is provide the message and the message turns out to be popular."
Said another way: it's not what Ron can do for them, but what they're doing through Ron. That's not true for Mitt or Rudy. Rudy's just being his prosecutorially verbal self and Mitt comes off like a 62-page corporate report fresh from Kinko's.
For the "What will you do and how will you do it?" crowd, Ron gives them an easily-digested answer.
Unless Mitt and Rudy figure out how to do some of the same, Ron might surprise them. Ron's campaign feels like his message: "We the People," a statement that is definitely true of him and his supporters.
The venerable Ron Paul raised $4 million through a savvy Internet campaign and spent nothing to do so. Which goes to show that nobody who is actually vote-worthy and electable in the Republican sphere has a clue how to gain traction online.
So...
It's my contention that he did this because the presidentially unelectable Ron Paul is no towering figure of gravitas but rather has a keen view of the Constitution that many running for office today don't have. That hearkening back to our nation's roots is what drives his swelling coffers.
Am I right?
Let's take a look at the 11 issues he outlines on his web site:
Debt and Taxes: "Too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future - and yours."
Amen brother. An opinion like that is worth every penny of that $4 million.
American Independence and Sovereignty: "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."
I agree with the precept, but I don't think that free trade is wrong. A tariff-free world is fine with me. With that caveat, any encroachment upon our ability to govern ourselves should be stiffarmed vigorously.
War and Foreign Policy: "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again."
The number one job of any government official in the US is obvious: the preservation of the US. While it's great to want to adhere to the Constitution in matters of non-interference, the founding fathers did not have to deal with intercontinental weapons. They were doing combat back then that allowed people to ride around on horseback all night warning others of impending invasion. Today, we get fifteen minutes - at most - before the New York City could be erased.
Dr. Paul and I part company here.
I wholeheartedly agree with him on this point: "Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."
Life and Liberty (aka, Ron Hates Abortion): "The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. As an OB/GYN doctor, I've delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."
Abortion is killing a baby; I agree with that, and I think that's mighty hard to disagree with that, although some obviously do. Whether it is "at the heart of the American ideals of liberty," that's up for debate.
What I do think is that the Constitution says nothing about this. I think it's a matter for states to determine (see the 10th amendment). It has no business in presidential politics.
The Second Amendment: "I share our Founders' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right. You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."
I'm hip to that.
Social Security: I'm quoting him in full on this one because he's dead on through the whole thing.
"Our nation's promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.
"Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.
"The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.
"Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors' income and raise their standard of living.
"Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
"We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
"Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."
"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Privacy and Personal Liberty: "The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."
He wants to, in effect, ban Social Security Numbers, avoid watching for money laundering, limit terrorism monitoring...
I disagree.
Property Rights and Eminent Domain: "We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."
Couldn't agree more.
Health Freedom: "Americans are justifiably concerned over the government's escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."
Um, okay. If some massive outbreak occurs and we all need vaccinations to prevent its spread to spare the rest of us death from your contagion, then I think you get the shot. But anything short of that, I agree - the government has no say in how I manage my health.
Home Schooling: "My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate. I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students."
I'm all for home schooling. Homeschoolers are, on average, remarkably better prepared / educated than public schoolers. I don't think it's because the parents are better teachers, but because of the individual focus and the lack of classroom distraction. Marshalling kids into the public classroom by mandate is absurd. Parents should have every freedom to school their kids where they choose.
That said, why is Ron Paul, Mr. Constitution, making a big deal out of this? Education is a state rights issue and has nothing to do with the federal government. While I agree with his position, as a presidential candidate, it's none of his business.
So there you have it. Those ideas are worth $4 million in a day.
He raised almost $4 million over the Internet without spending so much as a thin dime (beyond transaction fees, of course). This sort of thing just isn't done - usually you spend between fifty and eighty cents for every dollar you raise.
So why did that happen? Ron Paul has a face for radio. His voice isn't pleasant. He's not great in debates. How is it, then, that he raised so much money so effortlessly?
Because his libertarian ideas are that appealing, and he's the only one out there voicing them.
Let me put this another way. A lot of people probably support Rudy or Mitt because of who they are, but the cult of personality only goes so far.
Ron Paul is an obscure legislator. He's no reknowned leader. But his appeal is in his ideas. And on that merit alone, he netted "the largest Internet fundraising day in U.S. history. [He] attracted 40,000 donors who gave about $98 on average."
His supporters are fervent, that's for sure. I saw that at the Iowa Straw Poll when I was there. I used to laugh about this guy because I thought he had no chance in hell, but frankly, if he's gaining traction with money so easily, then it's worth knowing why.
ETC: Pale Rider rides in with an interesting message to all Ron Paul supporters.
I've taken a look at Ron's positions now on his web site. More about that later.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
Yep - I knew this back when I did my own research on it during the 2004 presidential campaign. Kerry got more coverage and he also get more favorable coverage.
And the Democrats have the gall to float the Fairness Doctrine. As if...
I have no problem with newspapers and TV stations and other outlets having their slant toward Democrats. I just won't watch them or read them. As many other Americans aren't, these days.
Circulation for newspapers is dropping because newspapers, consciously or unconsciously, decided to niche themselves as a voice for the Left. If the owners of these companies are comfortable with a smaller audience, then that's their business, and frankly, their choice. But I don't want to hear any boo-hoo'ing about it. Just like Hollywood these days... putting out anti-war films that few people care to watch. And then they wonder why these things bomb.
Any presidential candidate who wears his religion on his sleeve for all of us to see vies for pastor in chief, not commander in chief. Me? I'm voting for someone who can lead our nation to a strong military, smaller government, fewer taxes, individual freedom with no nannyish tendencies, and an America-first foreign policy.
