Earmarks

The Senate just doesn’t get it.  Friday, March 14^th, the Senate had an opportunity to end earmarks, at least on their side of the Capitol, but chose not to do so.  We have to ask why?  Earmarks are essentially spending without representation.  These appropriations are not voted per se, they often are inserted into a bill after the vote or are inserted into an unrelated bill that needs to be passed.  Earmarks are used as leverage for re-election (look what I have done for my state) and they are used to curry the favor of other Senators on a bill.  Senators simply do not wish to give up this effective re-election perk. After this recent vote we now know that the majority of Senators find nothing wrong with this practice of spending without representation. Remember 33 of these Senators are up for re-election in November. Perhaps checking to see how your Senator voted before casting your Senatorial vote in November would be a good thing to do.

Choosing the Right Person

If you like Senator McCain or dislike him, it is probably based on his recorded history. You can look at his accomplishments and failures and get a pretty decent picture of how he thinks. You can do this to a lesser degree with Senator Clinton. We could not do this with Senator Obama because we have no history - all we have are his words. Remember, words from any politician are just words designed to obtain our favor and vote. Now Senator Obama has some of his history revealed - yes he has condemned the statements of Reverend Wright, yes, he is now further distancing himself from Rev. Wright.What do we really know about Senator Obama? He wants us to believe that he had never heard these rants from Rev. Wright. Yet he was disinclined to have him speak at his Presidential announcement because the Reverend often uses rough words, according to Senator Obama - that was some time ago. I am sorry Senator Obama, what you say only rings true to those who desperately want a Democrat in the White House without regard to a good vetting of the candidate. Twenty years is a long time and you have made Reverend Wright a close part of your family for years. You have NEVER heard about his rants? Why then did you choose to not have him speak at your announcement? Comments from your spouse may now be better understood when held up against the ideology of Reverend Wright.

Our Choices

It is our plight to have to pick from second tier candidates again as we have had to do in the past elections of recent memory.Looking back, have we had any really good candidates for the Presidency on the ballot?Of recent years we had a choice between George Bush and John Kerry, George Bush and Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, Bill Clinton and George Bush 41 and Ross Perot (he had sufficient vote to be listed), George Bush 41 and Michael Dukakis. Are there candidates out there with the capability, experience, and judgment to be President, who do not have to dance around, obscure, and mislead us on their history to be elected?Is it us, the voters, is it the press, or is it the flood of people who make politics a career and not a calling that allows us to be presented with and to accept second tier candidates time and again?

Democrat Super Delegates

What are the reasons for the existence of super delegates?Well, the reason may be the same reason as the requirement for the Electoral College.First, can there be any other reason than to insure that party regulars can steer the party away from the choice of the primary voters and caucus attendees, if they feel that these rank and file non-party regulars may be picking an unelectable candidate or a candidate who is not in step with the Party?Is there any other reason – I can’t think of one – please comment if you have come up with other valid reasons.

The Founding fathers felt that the populace, with a very high illiteracy rate at that time and no national press, would have difficulty making a choice for the President because they would not know enough about the candidates.Also at that time this was truly a states rights nation with the federal government to be subordinate to the states in all matters except foreign affairs, international trade and defense.So why shouldn’t the states choose the President.It was not until 1872 that a popular vote was used at all, and that was to decide on who the Electoral College members would be for each state.Prior to 1872 the state legislators determined the members of the Electoral College.We were founded as a Republic and to this date we operate as a Republic in Presidential elections, with a hint of Democracy – popular vote only counts toward the Electoral vote for each state.

It does seem surprising that the Democratic Party would choose to use super delegates, representing 20% of the overall delegates, appointed by the party based primarily upon positions now or previously held in the Congress and State Legislators.It also is surprising that the Democratic Party would use proportional delegate counts, if not to provide more impact to the super delegates.No one candidate can really win a state so the delegate count would remain in a region where no candidate can get a commanding lead unless the other candidates fall or drop out along the way, thus the super delegates’ votes become prominent.This smacks of the Electoral College, in that the Democratic Party might not believe that their membership is incapable of choosing a candidate.At least the Founding Fathers had a compelling reason to make this country a Republic and not a pure democracy.What is the Democratic Party’s reason for operating like a republic and not a pure democracy?Perhaps someone will enlighten me with a comment – be nice.

For those of you who have not given this thought, I ask “what is change?”Is change the same thing to you as to the person standing next to you?Are you sure that the change you are seeking is the change that is being offered from the candidates?Change can mean many things.According to Webster’s dictionary “change” is a noun and a verb.It can mean make something radically different or to simply shift position.It can mean to become different or to completely transform.It can also simply mean to pass possession from one owner to that of another.

Have you thought about the change being offered by your candidate?Are you quite sure that your definition of change means the same to your candidate.What if your candidate wants to radically change something you thing works well?What if your candidate wants to NOT change what you want changed?Senator Obama appears to be setting a record listing something like 140 issues in need of change.Have you studied each of these items on the change hit list to be sure you agree with them all or most all?

We have three potential new U.S. Presidents running for office today.Each candidate talks about change, one has driven a whole lot of change already while in Congress – some like the change, some do not.One candidate claims to be an agent for change, but has not demonstrated that he or she is a proven agent of change. Another candidate wants to make a host of radical changes and again without any evidence that that candidate is capable of steering radical change.To support all these changes, you need to do two things, especially when the word radical is in the mix.First, you need to understand what your candidate really wants to change and whether that candidate is fully capable of delivering the change; second, you need to understand whether the change your candidate wants to deliver will be more harmful than no change at all.

Another element of change is determining whether the candidate can do it alone or does the candidate need help.None of the candidates running will be able to effect change without help.Currently there are 468 assistant change agents up for reelection in November (435 Representatives and 33 Senators).Many of these folks do not want change because they have it “pretty good”.Some have been sitting in their power perches observing the scurrying about them by new folks who earnestly desire to make things better, yet these birds of prey like it just the way it is, despite what they tell their constituents.Let me be clear!Anti-change is so intense in Congress that changing one person, the President, will change very little other than window dressing.

An example of the wrong change by the wrong person and the impact of that change recently came to light.Senators Obama and Clinton, pandering to win Ohio, each derided NAFTA as being the cause of the misery in Ohio.Each candidate knows better, but instead of pointing out that NAFTA is not the reason for the misery in Ohio, that it is our country’s failure to remain competitive in world trade, they heavily derided NAFTA.They pandered for votes and delegates and in doing so, made our loyal trade partner, Canada, a major supplier of oil to us, very nervous.Canada started to talk about reviewing the amount of oil they send us.The push for NAFTA change, misplaced as it was, caused both campaigns to let Canada know quietly that they were just campaign posturing – you know, blowing smoke up the electorate’s collective butts!Remember be careful what kind of change you seek and who you choose to deliver it.

(See http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/nafta-means-lost-jobs-%e2%80%93-probably-not/ for more insight on NAFTA.)

To recap, if you want change, determine just what change you want, what will its affect be, and if the person you want to deliver that change has the know-how for change, veracity, and a history of driving bipartisan change.You will also need to give that person change assistants, which means changing the 87% of Congress up for election to remove the perched power brokers using seniority to block change.

Senator McCain, you must find a way to remain in the forefront of the public consciousness, while Senators Obama and Clinton are busy trying to earn their party’s nomination and the press is fawning all over the Democratic Party race.

Why not hold a series of public, invitation only, forums on a number of the issues facing us today?  You should hold meetings with bipartisan experts from their respective fields on:

• Oil/Energy - what is the fastest and most effective way for this country to shed its oil addiction?
• Jobs/Trade - what is the fastest and most effective way to turn this country into a world trading juggernaut and bring manufacturing jobs back to America?
• Social Security - what is the most effective way for us to secure, preserve, and enhance social security to ensure that is meets the needs of current recipients, near recipients, and the young people paying into it today.
• Immigration - what do we do with the current population of illegal immigrants after the border is controlled?
• Education - do we really need the Department of Education at $60 Billion annually?  Don’t the states have qualified people to manage education, is there a redundancy?
• Health Care - can it be fixed so as to cover most everyone in an affordable and effective manner?
• Housing - what is the most effective way to stave off deflation of housing values?  Keep the housing values high and you will have a chance of getting out of this mortgage mess.

Broadcast these meetings on the internet.

Senator, no definitive results will come out of these meetings, yet

• you will have given yourself a template for action, if elected
• you will have demonstrated a clear desire to solve these problems, creating hope
• you will have kept your activities in the media, while polishing a domestic agenda image

How would your attempt to address these issues in a presidential manner, while your opponent is mired in a fight for the nomination be viewed?I hope someone in your campaign with a little forethought sees this message and conveys it to you.

MSNBC’s debate the other evening focused on three themes. The health insurance debate, of which there is little difference between the plans of Senators Clinton and Obama, non-issue oriented questions of both moderators, and how NAFTA is ruining Ohio.  First, the loss of jobs in Ohio is tied to the extensive use of technology in manufacturing, and the worldwide competitiveness of a multitude of manufacturing nations and our governments failure to prepare us to compete in a fierce worldwide trade market.  It has little to do with Canada, whose manufacturing industry is on the decline, and Mexico which is responsible for only 11% of our imports – these two nations are NAFTA.  Do you think one moderator or candidate might have pointed out the trade problem distinction - if the candidates did not know then find new candidates, because neither is ready to be President?

Beyond this apparent gaff, I can tell you I have had about enough of debate questions designed to incite.  I would hope that moderators would refrain from asking – How do you feel about your opponent’s attacks on you?  The moderators clearly either don’t want to do fact checked follow-up questions or are just not knowledgeable enough to do these necessary questions.  I need to be fair and point out that the overall news media in general, not just MSNBC, has not served this nation well with the choice of moderators for most of the debates. They seem more inclined to talk feelings, attack ads, and gotcha quotes.  Often the political leaning of the moderator falls out all over their desk like a spilled can of red paint.It is noticed.  Does anyone with a brain really care what these media types think and how they lean politically?

Why can’t we have a debate where tough questions are asked that test the knowledge, readiness to lead, the judgment of the candidate, and the enterprise to work through the political mine field to achieve a goal?  Why does it appear that questions are tailored for the candidate, either to make them look poorly or to make them look presidential – okay, we might know the answer to that question?Of course, the positions of the candidates need to be learned; however, these positions are usually on their web site or in their campaign handouts or can be found in their opponent’s attack ads.

One moderator, last night, did make an attempt at asking the same hypothetical question to each candidate, but the question had a predictable answer before it was asked.It had something to do with - if Iraq asked us to leave, would we leave.Duh!  What candidate, in their right mind, after the U.S. has recognized Iraq as a sovereign nation, would say - no we will stay anyway.  Of course they would say – yes we will leave.This is the best this highly trained moderator could come up with?

Perhaps each candidate should be asked different questions, perhaps placed in envelopes chosen at random by each candidate.  The moderator points out that these are tough question with no easy answers.

1. The moderator opens the envelope and then says asks the hypothetical but realistic question: Senator, as President, you have pulled out of Iraq, Iran has filled the void in Iraq and has now taken control of the Strait of Hormuz.It now controls 60% of the world’s oil exports.Iran is refusing oil shipments to the United States.  How do you respond to this threat?
2. The moderator opens the next envelope, selected by the next candidate, and asks: Three years from now, Iran hits Israel with a low yield nuclear tipped missile, 10,000 are dead, and Israel is mobilizing to go to nuclear war with Iran.  How do you respond to this crisis?

These questions are realistic, the solutions are cloudy, but the depth of a candidate response to the question will tell us a whole lot about the candidate. When will we start to ask tough questions of these candidates?  The media today is not providing any help in picking candidates. The media is more fixated on what Bill Cunningham said, who released the goofy picture of Senator Obama, or printing a story on page one that there is rumor and suspicion that Senator McCain may have possibly had an affair with a lobbyist and possibly or perhaps could have done favors on behalf of that lobbyist, like send a letter to the FCC asking a government agency only to make a decision - not how to make the decision. What are they teaching in journalism school – Tabloid 101?

Sounds confusing, doesn’t it. The cry around this country to “get those dastardly corporations – they are the cause of all our troubles” is so misplaced that it is almost like saying don’t put prisoners in prisons, because prisons are unsafe because there are too many dangerous people in prison.

Have I now cleared all this up? Okay it is simple, even if Senators Obama and Clinton appear to not get it. Corporations factor in the income tax rate into their cost of sales and thus the price they set on what you buy at the point of sale. So, go ahead and tax the living day lights out of these corporations, they just collect their income tax for the government from you. There is one hiccup with this plan. These corporations are unable to incorporate their income tax into the price on sales overseas or in Canada and Mexico.

Senators Obama and Clinton, please pay attention here as this is important and you act like you have never heard this before. When you tax a corporation and it cannot pass on that tax it either cannot survive internationally or it adapts by closing plants in the United States and opening these plants in another country. Are you still listening? When they do this, they create jobs in other nations and terminate jobs in the United States. This is called free enterprise. We could try to regulate corporations and force them to keep the jobs in the United States, but then they will not make any money and the investment capital will move to a company in another country and not here. It is like squeezing a balloon. Squeeze one end and it gets bigger on the other end – squeeze too hard and it breaks.

Our tax code and the fact that we tax our corporations at the second highest rate internationally may have something to do with out trade deficits and the loss of good paying jobs in this country. So yes, when we tax a corporation they bill us for the tax through domestic sales or sell us merchandise made in another country where the bulk of the profit is taxed at the other country’s favorable rate and the taxes go to the other country.

Senator Obama has a socialist solution for this conundrum. Instead of lowering taxes on domestic corporations so they can manufacture in the United States and create good paying jobs. These are jobs that make you more financially viable, jobs that make our economy healthier, and jobs that help us export to other nations. Senator Obama’s solution is to support the Patriot Employer Act. This act is right out of the socialist play book – we all know that the socialist economic system is failing all over the world. It is the second worst economic system, on how people benefit, only when compared to communism.

The Wall Street Journal quotes Peter Merrill whom they refer to as “…an international tax expert at PriceWaterhouseCoopers…” as saying “…Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. Companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.” http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120407121574294919-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI0ODAyNzgxWj.html

Honestly, they must have taught international economics at either Columbia or Harvard when Senator Obama attended. If he knows better and is sending us down the wrong path just to get elected, then he does not deserve to be President. If he does not know better, then he does not deserve to be President. The same should apply to Senator Clinton. The solution, Senators Obama and Clinton, is to help these corporations become as competitive as we possibly and then turn them loose on the world. This will create the right kind of jobs for this nation – we will not have to settle for jobs where you must learn the phrase – Do you want fries with that?

Senator Obama, drop your support of the misnamed Patriot Employment Act which is a form of reverse protectionism – it protects the world from us – and lower or eliminate corporate taxes. Yes, we all will personally pay more income tax which will be offset by lower prices for goods, since the tax will no longer be included in the price. This will stimulate domestic production of all kinds of goods and improve our standard of living by allowing us to hold better jobs. Aren’t you and Senator Clinton about jobs?